HOW NEVER TO CLEAN ANOTHER CHAIN WHILE TRIPLING YOUR CHAIN MILEAGE by Andre Jute

[Andre Jute]

HOW NEVER TO CLEAN ANOTHER CHAIN WHILE TRIPLING YOUR CHAIN MILEAGE
by Andre Jute
Lateral Thinker & Sideways Cyclist

I never even see my chain between fitting a new one and fitting the next new one. If you cycle smart, you don't ever clean a chain. The required drivetain components are:

1. A hub gearbox. I recommend Rolloff, and also like Shimano) or a single speed or a fixie.

2. A good quality chain. I use KMC X8 but the Z8 is supposedly cheaper and is designed for this purpose but it's less common, so I buy my X8 in bulk from a discounter for much less than Z8; the pricey X1 supposedly lasts almost infinitely. The key is not only the quality of the chain but of the factory lube as well. KMC in my experience has the best of both.

3. Best quality sprocket, preferably stainless steel.

4. Stainless steel chainring; the Surly is available in a wide range of PCD fitments and tooth counts, and fits inside the Chainglider.

5. Hebie Chainglider.

The Chainglider keeps out road and ambient and global warming crud, the stainless cogs don't wear enough to make a grinding paste like the cheap ali beloved of the weight weenies does, and the whole drivetrain assembly runs happily on the factory lube for the entire life of the chain.

Here's the kicker. On Shimano chains, inside big plastic Dutch chain cases, on aliminium gears I used to get about 1000m/1600km per chain even with religious chain maintenance. With the KMC/chainglider/stainless gears setup above I do zero chain maintenance and my last chain made 4506km, near enough three times the distance I ever made on a chain before. (And I replaced it early because at the time I was too ill to lift the bike up on the workstand and fitting a new chain was easier and quicker than messing around with the rear wheel in the sliders to adjust chain tension.)

I got the idea for this setup on reading that Sheldon Brown thought the factory lube good for 700m on his open chains, which led me to wonder how long it would last inside my protected drivetrain on my low-tending-to-zero-maintenance development bike. I wish Sheldon were here so I could share the success of my setup with him.

Copyright © 2015 Andre Jute but free for reproduction in non-profit media as long as the entire article including this copyright and permissions notice is reproduced.

[avag...@gmail.com]

if I read this, I'll find a humor piece ?

[Sir Ridesalot]

Just get rid of the chain and pedals then drop the saddle so that feet can be flat on the ground when butt is on the saddle and then run like hell to give butt a ride.

Cheers

[Andre Jute]

Is this the Jeff Daniels who whines that I don't post any of my technical articles on RBT?

On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 8:16:10 PM UTC, avag...@gmail.com wrote:
> if I read this, I'll find a humor piece ?

Now we know why.

Andre Jute

[Andre Jute]

Or you could do it right, Ridealot. There are numbered instructions included, just for you.

Andre Jute

[Andre Jute]

In reply, two smartarse posts.

Oh well, I suppose there is forward-looking tech and dumpster-dive tech, and now we know which is suitable for rec.bicycles.tech.

Andre Jute

[Frank Krygowski]

Hmm. We can replace a $30 chain every year, or we can instead install a
thousand dollar hub, plastic chainguards, and a special chainring so we replace
the chain less often. (Yes, we can save hundreds by choosing fewer speeds,
but most of us have an idea of what we want for gearing.)

Sorry, Andre, most of us are capable of simple calculations of payback
periods. Your solution isn't forward-looking. It's affected, prissy and for
most of us, unnecessary.

- Frank Krygowski

[Andre Jute]

Gee, Frank, even for an engineer you have amazingly little soul. A Rohloff gearbox is worth having by itself as fine engineering, a very useful gear range with equal spacing between 14 gears which you can change at standstill without regard to order of gears, effectively a lifetime warranty, miniscule service requirements, etc. And the grand it costs in Euro is less than half of what a DuraAce 9000 setup costs. I checked, and had to climb off my treadmill and sit down until the shock passed when the headline on the first article Bing found informed me "Shimano Dura-Ace 9000 groupset £1814.92"; that's around three thousand dollars.

So, if you have the hub gearbox already, for about about eighty or ninety bucks you can cut your chain service to nil, triple the chain life, and spend that time riding, which surely you know is worth much more in health benefits than eighty bucks.

By the way, it appears that you think I have a great big clanking Dutch chaincase; it's really difficult to answer your constant judgemental ignorance without being rude. Before you call the Chainglider "affected and prissy", you should inform yourself. At http://tweewieler.v2.vs12.blueskies.nl/public/image/artikelen/20060601-rohloff_chainglider.jpg you can see that it is an elegant, silent, thin chain cover of hard rubber, as fitted to all the best European bikes.

In any event, your claim of being able to calculate the opportunity cost of not having my near-zero chain-service setup is way off the mark. A worn chain doesn't wear only itself, it takes down with the chainring and the sprocket, especially if they're of aluminium.

Andre Jute
Ride tall!

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 10:10:07 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
<fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>HOW NEVER TO CLEAN ANOTHER CHAIN WHILE TRIPLING YOUR CHAIN MILEAGE
>by Andre Jute
>Lateral Thinker & Sideways Cyclist

>I never even see my chain between fitting a new one and fitting the next new one.

I presume that you're confident enough that there's no chain stretch
that it's not necessary to look for problems. I'm not that confident
about my bicycle components and would probably inspect the chain.

>1. A hub gearbox. I recommend Rolloff, and also like Shimano) or
>a single speed or a fixie.

I would love to have a $1,000 hub gearbox. However, all of my
bicycles are old and worth at most $300 each. Adding a $1,000
component to save a few dollars for a new chain, or a few minutes for
a chain lube job, does not seem like a good return on the investment.
A KMC X8 chain is about $16 retail. I can buy about 60 retail chains
for the price of one Rolloff hub gearbox. I will concede that it will
accomplish the desired goal, but unless one finds chain cleaning
somehow demeaning of a proper cyclist, one can do better by simply
replacing the chain when needed.

>3. Best quality sprocket, preferably stainless steel.
>4. Stainless steel chainring; the Surly is available in a wide
>range of PCD fitments and tooth counts, and fits inside the Chainglider.

I dunno if stainless is going to be very useful. It's good for rust
resistance, but is not as hard as the usual high carbon steel. I
suspect that stainless teeth might wear quicker.

>... the stainless cogs don't wear enough to make a grinding paste
>like the cheap ali beloved of the weight weenies does,...

Yep. I guess that's an advantage for stainless. The rust that
collects on high carbon gears is what creates the abrasive compound.
However, road dirt makes a good substitute so I don't see an advantage
to stainless here.


--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Frank Krygowski]

I've never seen any evidence that the wear of the aluminum contributes
significantly to the grit. I suspect that during the life of a typical
wet lube bike chain, several ounces of grit mix with the lube to make
that black mess. If that were mostly aluminum, a chainring wouldn't
last 500 miles.

I believe almost all the grit comes from the road. Aluminum is very
common in most soils, in the form of aluminum oxide, which is a pretty
effective abrasive.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Jeff Liebermann]

Emery cloth is aluminum oxide grit set in iron oxide.
<http://homeguides.sfgate.com/emery-cloth-vs-sandpaper-96632.html>

I once had an argument with a friend about the constitution of the
black goo on my bicycle chain. I don't happen to have a mass
spectrometer in the office, so I settled for some chemistry and a
magnet. I won't go into the chemistry right now, but suffice to say
that when the grease was dissolved off, it was mostly the local clay
(alumina and silica) with a fair amount of organic matter.

My theory was that if the chain was shaving metal, the grease and oils
would prevent them from oxidizing, thus NOT forming abrasive iron
oxide. I collected as much black goo as I could smear off the chain,
dissolved most of it in acetone, and dumped a cellophane wrapped
magnet into the much before the acetone evaporated. There was quite a
bit of iron collected on the cellophane. The problem was that I had
no idea if it was coming from the chain, or was in the local dirt.
There seemed to be quite a bit of iron collected on the cellophane,
but without measurements, I could be sure of even a bad guess.

[Andre Jute]

On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 2:38:41 AM UTC, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 10:10:07 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
> <xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >HOW NEVER TO CLEAN ANOTHER CHAIN WHILE TRIPLING YOUR CHAIN MILEAGE
> >by Andre Jute
> >Lateral Thinker & Sideways Cyclist
>
> >I never even see my chain between fitting a new one and fitting the next new one.
>
> I presume that you're confident enough that there's no chain stretch
> that it's not necessary to look for problems. I'm not that confident
> about my bicycle components and would probably inspect the chain.

I did, originally, at 500 and then 1000km intervals and then, finding nothing amiss, not at all.

> >1. A hub gearbox. I recommend Rolloff, and also like Shimano) or
> >a single speed or a fixie.
>
> I would love to have a $1,000 hub gearbox. However, all of my
> bicycles are old and worth at most $300 each. Adding a $1,000
> component to save a few dollars for a new chain, or a few minutes for
> a chain lube job, does not seem like a good return on the investment.
> A KMC X8 chain is about $16 retail. I can buy about 60 retail chains
> for the price of one Rolloff hub gearbox. I will concede that it will
> accomplish the desired goal, but unless one finds chain cleaning
> somehow demeaning of a proper cyclist, one can do better by simply
> replacing the chain when needed.

Oh dear. No one says you have to have a Rolloff gearbox. You can make a complete Shimano hub gearbox installation for little more than a hundred bucks if you use eBay.de wisely. I already had the Rohloff gearbox when I set out on this road of making a zero-maintenance bike. (More specifically, lest some literal idiot calls me a liar for not dotting all the ts and crossing all the eyes, I had already on earlier less expensive hub gearboxes tried all the Dutch forms of the chaincase and found them too clumsy, and so ordered my Rohloff bike with a Utopia Country chaincase, which is a sort of very upmarket Chainglider workalike -- don't even think of asking how much: you'll have a stroke.)

You could turn one of your bikes into a single speed and the Chainglider would give you the same protection.

> >3. Best quality sprocket, preferably stainless steel.
> >4. Stainless steel chainring; the Surly is available in a wide
> >range of PCD fitments and tooth counts, and fits inside the Chainglider.
>
> I dunno if stainless is going to be very useful. It's good for rust
> resistance, but is not as hard as the usual high carbon steel. I
> suspect that stainless teeth might wear quicker.

Not the case on my bike, nor on the bike of many who, since I wrote on the subject elsewhere, have copied my installation.

> >... the stainless cogs don't wear enough to make a grinding paste
> >like the cheap ali beloved of the weight weenies does,...
>
> Yep. I guess that's an advantage for stainless. The rust that
> collects on high carbon gears is what creates the abrasive compound.

Perhaps in an open transmission. But I had plain steel gears on an Amar crankset made in India in use for more than three years inside several different chain cases, including the Chainglider, and they did not rust.

> However, road dirt makes a good substitute so I don't see an advantage
> to stainless here.

No dirt gets into the Chainglider. That's its function, to keep dirt out. It works. Others have duplicated my experience, and amazement. You, and obstructive Krygowski, are thinking of the clanking, perforated Dutch chain cases.

Andre Jute

[Andre Jute]

Well, in that case, since the Chainglider very effectively excludes dirt, the is nothing to wear it but the chain rubbing on itself. On ali drivetrains with Shimano chains in full Dutch chain cases, I achieved about 1600km on a chain. With admittedly better KMC chains running on stainless gears I'm getting a minimum of 4500km. That's three times as far. I can see that the added lube in the first case(s) added a grinding paste with whatever dust came into those big chaincases. But, by your logic, in the closefitting Chainglider, the chain should last forever, if it doesn't destroy itself, not just three times as long.

It would be ironic if I were to conclude that what destroys transmissions is the lube, which provides a carrier for grit, that it is another of cycling's counterproductive street corner myths that real cyclists suffer to clean their chain.

I seems to remember Jobst saying that abrasive paste, such as you can buy in a tin, is nothing but sand mixed with oil.

None of that on my bike.

Andre Jute

[John B. Slocomb]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 18:38:37 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

There are varsities of "stainless" alloys that are hardenable. the 400
series and if you want to go further there the AUXs series - series
contain from 0.65% carbon for the AUX-6 and 1.1% for the AUX-1010

>>... the stainless cogs don't wear enough to make a grinding paste
>>like the cheap ali beloved of the weight weenies does,...
>
>Yep. I guess that's an advantage for stainless. The rust that
>collects on high carbon gears is what creates the abrasive compound.
>However, road dirt makes a good substitute so I don't see an advantage
>to stainless here.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[Sir Ridesalot]

I get at least that much @5,000 km on my derailleur bikes sans stainless cogs and also sans enclosed or any chain cover. makes changing a tire or patching a tube very easy too.

Plus I can either repair everything myself or have it done at nearly any bicycle shop anywhere.

Cheers

[Joe Riel]

How does it simplify changing a tire? My initial thought is that
it would make it more complex, but don't know. A video would be
helpful.

--
Joe Riel

[AMuzi]

Mr Jute has the Rohloff with chain cover and stainless bits.
Sir has a simple derailleur system without covers on which
tire changing is unimpeded.

Neither system is 'best' IMHO and as always we celebrate
diversity of taste and equipment here at RBT.

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

[Ralph Barone]

If my GPS is to be believed, I've got just short of 9,000 km on my Surly,
and it's still on the factory chain. Maybe it's time to take the chain
gauge to it.

[Joe Riel]

Andre suggested that his setup make changing a tire easier. I'm
wondering how. I have no experience with a Hebie chainglider; my first
thought is that getting the wheel off, and then back on, might be more
difficult, compared to a bike with rear derailer and quick releases.
It's not obvious [I'm imagining] how one gets the chain off the cog
considering it is enclosed by the chainglider. Does one first take the
chainglider off? How much a pain is that? I've seen a video of one
being installed. My experience with disassembling lightweight plastic
structures that snap together is not good.

--
Joe Riel

[jbeattie]

Might get reasonable if the Euro keeps crashing.

Apart from weight and price differences, the deal with the all-in-one approach is that you're stuck with it -- the gear range (can't go out and fuss with chain rings or cassettes), the shift method (twist shift), the fact that if you bash the wheel, your bike is out of service until you can rebuild the wheel rather than just popping in a spare. I don't know what tire/flat changes are like, but I have to assume that they're more difficult with a internal gear hub.

With all that said, and if you like the twist shift/gear range, the Speedhub is really sturdy and a low maintenance drive train -- and does save some costs on disposables like cassettes, chains, chain rings. The weight penalty on a mountain bike is supposedly only about 300 grams (after cutting a chain ring, rear derailleur and big cassettes). You'll loose 300 grams off your wallet, so no real weight penalty for a mountain bike.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Lou Holtman]

It is extremely wet the last weeks here. Off road is extremely muddy as a
result. In these conditions my Rohloff equipped ATB excels. Rohloff? Use is
wisely...
--
Lou

[Frank Krygowski]

On 1/17/2015 12:41 PM, Joe Riel wrote:

> AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> writes:
>
>> Mr Jute has the Rohloff with chain cover and stainless bits.
>> Sir has a simple derailleur system without covers on which tire
>> changing is unimpeded.
>>
>> Neither system is 'best' IMHO and as always we celebrate diversity of
>> taste and equipment here at RBT.

And, since this is a technical discussion group, we should consider
ourselves free to discuss the benefits and detriments of the various
technological choices.

>
> Andre suggested that his setup make changing a tire easier. I'm
> wondering how. I have no experience with a Hebie chainglider; my first
> thought is that getting the wheel off, and then back on, might be more
> difficult, compared to a bike with rear derailer and quick releases.
> It's not obvious [I'm imagining] how one gets the chain off the cog
> considering it is enclosed by the chainglider. Does one first take the
> chainglider off? How much a pain is that? I've seen a video of one
> being installed. My experience with disassembling lightweight plastic
> structures that snap together is not good.

I'd be curious how many flat tires Mr. Jute incurs in a typical year.
And whether he fixes them, or has his mechanic (or perhaps chauffeur?)
fix them for him. I suspect that there are very few flats, none of them
occuring more than a few km from his house.

There's nothing wrong with that, of course.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Lou Holtman]

A chaincase makes a flat more difficult to fix not a Rohloff hub. IIRC a
hebie chainglider is (much) easier than a typical Dutch closed chaincase
which are the work of Satan in that respect to cite Sheldon.

--
Lou

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per jbeattie:

>With all that said, and if you like the twist shift/gear range, the Speedhub is really sturdy and a low maintenance drive train -- and does save some costs on disposables like cassettes, chains, chain rings. The weight penalty on a mountain bike is supposedly only about 300 grams (after cutting a chain ring, rear derailleur and big cassettes). You'll loose 300 grams off your wallet, so no real weight penalty for a mountain bike.

My experience is that it added 1.9 pounds to a bike where it replaced a
SRAM 9.0 setup with twist shifters.

Here's a review I wrote a looooong time ago:
=======================================================================

Pros:

- Wide shifts:
Probably a substitute for proper technique, but I can clean inclines
that I couldn't before. Hammer in to it in, say, gear 8, then jump down
to 4, then to 1 as needed.

Also, on long climbs I like to alternate in and out of the saddle which,
for me, is a 3 or 4 gear shift on each change. With the der I used to do
it a lot less frequently that I really like and in the spirit of "Gee, I
sure hope I don't miss this shift and take the saddle horn up my butt
(again...)".

Now I just snap those wide shifts without even thinking about it. Any
time, any place.- I'm always in the right gear, since shifting is
essentially trivial; seems like shifts take less than a fiftieth of a
second.


- No more rear cog problems: no taco'd cogs, no more vines/small
branches/grass wrapped around the cog/der.


- It *seems* pretty-much bombproof. Time will tell, but I was spending
more time than I cared to adjusting my der and bending a cog wheel while
riding was a PITA.


- Greatly-reduced frequency of missed shifts. "Reduced" and not "Zero"
because there is a 'gotcha' between 7 and 8 dumps you into gear 14 if
you forget and shift under load.

It pops back into the intended gear as soon as the load comes off, but
it's nothing you want to make a habit of doing. As I write this
little addendum, I cannot remember the last time that happened to me...
so, with a little experience, I'd say it becomes a non-issue.


- Ability to shift down when stopped. I think I make more than my share
of unplanned stops and I used to have to lift up the rear wheel and
rotate the cranks to get down to a starting gear.

Also, my technique sucks and probably won't get any better and it's nice
to be able approach an object and slow way, way down before negotiating
it without worrying about getting stuck in too high a gear to get over
it.


- I don't have to keep mental track of which chain ring I'm on. Sounds
trivial, but I don't have any brain cells to spare.


- Maybe not so much of a strength, but it should be mentioned somewhere
that 14 speeds are enough.

My original 44-32-22 der setup took me from 18.5 to 104.

With the Rohloff on a 44 I get 19.9 to 104.9 in nice even, uniform 13.8%
increments. That's only one less gear and, since I never used 104 it's a
wash for me.

With the 38 that I've since gone over to it's 17.2 - 90.6.
I don't get spun out in 90.6 until about 25 mph - and there's no way I
can hold that speed for very long anyhow.

I left the old 32 in the middle position just because it weighs next to
nothing and, on a big bump sometimes the chain drops (you're supposed to
have a front-der-like dingus up there to keep it from doing that ....but
I never go around to getting one) the 32 catches the chain. Also
allows shifting down to a usually-ludicrous 14.something if things get
really bad....

Cons:

- It costs an arm and a leg.

If my wife ever finds out I spent close to a grand on a rear wheel,
she'll start to doubt my sanity.

- This hub weighs a *lot*. It added 1.9 pounds to my already-heavy bike
- same rim/tube/tire/spoke gauge.
Anybody who says it only adds a pound must be using a really, *really*
heavy cog/hub/der/shifter setup. I was using SRAM 9.0 with twist
shifters.

- The installation instructions could use a re-write. I'm no rocket
scientist, and after studying them long enough I pulled it off - but it
could have been a *lot* easier.

- It's heavy. Are you ready for an 8-pound rear wheel?

- The torque arm mounting that came with it was decidedly un-German
(downright kludgy, I'd say...). Hose clamps!

Also sometime during the first hundred miles the little clevis pin that
held it all together disappeared. Wasn't a catastrophic failure because
the normal riding pressure pushes everything together.... I probably
installed the c-ring keeper wrong or something - but it seems like a
weak point. Replaced it with a marine shackle set in LocTite.

I have since discovered that there is a more elegant torque arm setup
that Rohloff calls the "SpeedBone". Uses the disk brake mount and does
not interfere with using a disk brake.

- Evenly-spaced shifts: From me, this is strictly a theoretical "con",
but if somebody were in good enough shape to be riding in/having to keep
up with a pace line, they would want closer spacing in the upper gears.
It's no problem for me, bco my pathetic physical condition and riding
style (or lack thereof), but it's pretty sure tb an issue with a more
competitive rider.


- It's heavy.


- It's noisy, especially in gears 1-7. Supposedly this mitigates with
age, but it is still an issue with me at 1,000 miles.

Late breaking news: After 5,000+ miles the noise has mitigated, my
hearing has deteriorated, or I've been drinking less coffee or something
bc the noise is no longer an issue with me.


- It's definitely less efficient in gears 1-8.

There's a web site somewhere (in German) that supposedly graphs a
Rohloff against one of the Shimano's and claims no loss in most gears
and 1-2% in the lower gears.

I would disagree with that web site's figures.


- Did I mention that it's heavy?
------------------------------------------------
Bottom Line:

This is definitely not for everybody and the torque arm thing bugged me
until I got the more elegant replacement.

Having said that, I find that me and the Rohloff are a good match.

I've quickly gotten so used to getting any gear I want any time I want
and never having to stop and pull brush/branches out of my rear der that
I can't imagine going back.

It also appeals to the exhibitionist in me...

You, on the other hand, might hate the thing.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot: it's heavy.
=======================================================================
--
Pete Cresswell

[Andre Jute]

On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 1:33:59 PM UTC, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 1:53:23 AM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:

> > On ali drivetrains with Shimano chains in full Dutch chain cases, I achieved about 1600km on a chain. With admittedly better KMC chains running on stainless gears I'm getting a minimum of 4500km. That's three times as far.
>

> > Andre Jute
>
> I get at least that much @5,000 km on my derailleur bikes sans stainless cogs and also sans enclosed or any chain cover.

So, perhaps you'd get 15000km if you fitted a hub gearbox, stainless gears and a Chainglider, and you'd have the time you saved from transmission maintenance to ridealot, as your monicker claims.

>makes changing a tire or patching a tube very easy too.

First of all, cyclists who have flats do it to themselves by choosing flat-prone tyres. I'm not a masochist. I ride on belted tyres. I haven't had a flat for getting on for two decades now. Secondly, my bike, as can be seen from that detail, represents a systems approach to making the bike attention-free, not only near-zero maintenance but ultra-reliable.

In any event, I don't see how having a hub gearbox makes removing the wheel more difficult. If you buy the right Rohloff model -- the EXT one, not the one that has exposed cables to save two grammes and make roadies feel at home -- you undo one thumbscrew to remove the cable box, and you drop the wheel out the same way as you drop out a wheel on a road bike.

Nor does the Chainglider make removing the wheel more difficult. You just pull off the rear part of Chainglider, one smooth movement, a fraction of a second, and that's it. Refitting might take a second.

You haven't looked at what you're discussing, Ridealot. You're just, like Krygowski, coming up with mindless objections based on your personal dislike of the proposer. I don't care shit whether you like me, but it is tiresome having to straighten out your lazy misconceptions.

> Plus I can either repair everything myself or have it done at nearly any bicycle shop anywhere.

Sure you can. So can I on the Rolloff, with the aid of widely available videos, if it should ever be necessary. But, since the Rohloff is virtually indestructible, and outrageously reliable, I have no need of repairs.

And I'll tell you something else. You have to pay your bicycle shop. If my Rohloff ever breaks, I'll send it to the factory, and they'll fix it free of charge and return it to me at their cost, regardless of the fact that it is years and years out of guarantee. Rohloff has an established history of fixing gearboxes that have been maintained (one oil change every year or 5000km, permitted to overrun if you're touring outside civilization) entirely free of charge on turnaround schedules that are the next best thing to instant. When you spend German money on German engineering you get German service. For life.

Andre Jute

[jbeattie]

I'll defer to someone who actually owns one -- this fanboy site has the difference under 300g: http://www.bikestation.fi/info/en/brands/rohloff/speedhub/weight/ It's even lighter than the Alfine system!

-- Jay Beattie.

[Andre Jute]

See the Rolloff EXT installation at http://coolmainpress.com/AndreJute'sUtopiaKranich.pdf by scrolling down to the large photos of the hub's non drive side which also show the torque retainer in it's slot (the little two-screw black nub in the same vertical slot below the axle nut) and the straight-down drop of the wheel. It's a one-second job to detach the black cable box with it's thumbscrew. Then you just drop the wheel, same as on a road bike.

On a proper installation there is no separate torque arm. Pete's installation with a separate torque arm called a Speedbone is a factory makeshift to allow adaptation of the Rohloff to existing frames with vertical dropouts, unnecessary on frames with sliders or long horizontal dropouts.

Nor does a Chainglider detain the wheelchanger long. It's a one second job to pull off the rear end before you drop the wheel.

Even Ridealot could probably manage to do the two one-second jobs at once with his left and right hand.

I notice that a lot of racers now have winter practice bikes with Rohloff rear ends to reduce maintenance and cost, but nobody's suggesting that road racers use Rohloff boxes. It's a fast touring sort of transmission, a commuting transmission, a utility transmission, and of course an offroad transmission for both entertainment and competition (this last is its primary and intended function).

> Neither system is 'best' IMHO and as always we celebrate
> diversity of taste and equipment here at RBT.

Some of these clowns demonstrate an exceedingly negative way to "celebrate".

Andre Jute

[Lou Holtman]

jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 2:03:40 PM UTC-8, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
>> Per jbeattie:
>>> With all that said, and if you like the twist shift/gear range, the
>>> Speedhub is really sturdy and a low maintenance drive train -- and does
>>> save some costs on disposables like cassettes, chains, chain rings. The
>>> weight penalty on a mountain bike is supposedly only about 300 grams
>>> (after cutting a chain ring, rear derailleur and big cassettes). You'll
>>> loose 300 grams off your wallet, so no real weight penalty for a mountain bike.
>>
>> My experience is that it added 1.9 pounds to a bike where it replaced a
>> SRAM 9.0 setup with twist shifters.
>>
>> Here's a review I wrote a looooong time ago:
>> ======================================================================>

>> ======================================================================> --

>> Pete Cresswell
>
> I'll defer to someone who actually owns one -- this fanboy site has the
> difference under 300g:
> http://www.bikestation.fi/info/en/brands/rohloff/speedhub/weight/ It's
> even lighter than the Alfine system!
>
> -- Jay Beattie.

Another data point
http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-c4xMxzpF3VY/UdXMVHhF-FI/AAAAAAAAEjw/uaDxkuEGRq8/s2048-no/IMG_2122.JPG
Why couldn't it be lighter than a Alfine system?
The whole issue of weight is ridiculous considering the intended use of a
Rohloff hub so is the discussion of the costs.

--
Lou

[Andre Jute]

On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 5:41:07 PM UTC, JoeRiel wrote:
> AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> writes:
>
> > On 1/17/2015 10:42 AM, Joe Riel wrote:

> Andre suggested that his setup make changing a tire easier.

I did? Where?

Changing the tyre is not something I would even consider, Joe. It is decades since I last had a flat. I run on low pressure belted balloons (Schwalbe Big Apple Liteskin 60x622 tyres with the T19 Ultraleicht tubes), ultra-comfortable, ultra-secure on my bad roads for both roadholding and handling, ultra-flat-resistant. As far as I'm concerned, flats are something unnecessary the less bright cyclists do to themselves because cyclists have always done it to themselves, and they don't have the brains to discover that there are alternatives to suffering.

> I'm
> wondering how. I have no experience with a Hebie chainglider; my first
> thought is that getting the wheel off, and then back on, might be more
> difficult, compared to a bike with rear derailer and quick releases.
> It's not obvious [I'm imagining] how one gets the chain off the cog
> considering it is enclosed by the chainglider. Does one first take the
> chainglider off? How much a pain is that? I've seen a video of one
> being installed. My experience with disassembling lightweight plastic
> structures that snap together is not good.

You're still confusing the Chainglider with those big Dutch plastic chaincases. I have considerable experience of those as well, and wrote the definitive article on them, and their more modern successors. But I recommend only the Chainglider. My articles and discussion with informed parties elsewhere are on the net; link on request. Forget what you know about plastic clip-together bits/; those are irritating crap and they ain't the Chainglider.

To answer your question: the Hebie Chainglider isn't brittle plastic at all but a thick, quite heavy rubbery concoction, more like a thin square-cornered tyre than any other chaincase you may ever have seen. It consists in use of two U shapes that plug together and adjust on a row of serrations in/on their ends, a long front piece and a short rear piece; together they cover the chain, cog and chainring, and they have no other support than the chain.

To drop the rear wheel, you pull the rear section out. That's it. It takes less time to do than to read the first sentence of this paragraph. Refitting is the reverse: you just push it in. In tens of thousands of kilometers neither I nor anyone who fitted the Chainglider on my recommendation has had one shift a single millimeter. Mine is like new every second year when I wipe the dust off it. (My bike's ten year guarantee depends on washing and waxing the frame every six months!)

The Rolloff, in a dedicated installation, by the way, demonstrates its competition ancestry (it's a mudplugger's competition box, because that's Bernd Rohloff's sport) by having in a proper installation, seen in the link I already gave Andrew Muzi, a single thumbscrew to undo before the wheel drops out loose, also a second's work.

Andre Jute

[Andre Jute]

On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 9:00:18 PM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 1/17/2015 12:41 PM, Joe Riel wrote:
> > AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> writes:
> >
> >> Mr Jute has the Rohloff with chain cover and stainless bits.
> >> Sir has a simple derailleur system without covers on which tire
> >> changing is unimpeded.
> >>
> >> Neither system is 'best' IMHO and as always we celebrate diversity of
> >> taste and equipment here at RBT.
>
> And, since this is a technical discussion group, we should consider
> ourselves free to discuss the benefits and detriments of the various
> technological choices.

So tell us, Franki-boy, what's technical about your personal attacks like "Your solution isn't forward-looking. It's affected, prissy" etc, etc.

Do you grasp, you thickly insensitive clown, how your consistent conflation of your personal dislikes with negative technical judgements on those you don't like undermine every single word you say? After a few years of everyone expecting you to lie, your opinion becomes worthless.

[Snip remarks by Joe Riel I've answered where they first appeared.]

> I'd be curious how many flat tires Mr. Jute incurs in a typical year.

None.

> And whether he fixes them, or has his mechanic (or perhaps chauffeur?)
> fix them for him.

I've been car-free since 1992. I practice what I preach, unlike you, Franki-boy.

>I suspect that there are very few flats, none of them
> occuring more than a few km from his house.

There are none whatsoever. The same way I have my mind in gear about the transmission, I have my mind in gear about the tyres, with the net result that there are no flats, and none expected.

> There's nothing wrong with that, of course.

They why raise it in this sourly negative manner? Surely it is a matter for praise and jubilation when a cyclist reports that he had no flats for many years.

> --
> - Frank Krygowski

Smile when you say that, feller.

Andre Jute
Defining the cutting edge

[Andre Jute]

On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 9:11:22 PM UTC, Lou Holtman wrote:

> a typical Dutch closed chaincase
> which are the work of Satan in that respect to cite Sheldon.

Invented by Leopold von Sacher-Masoch.

Andre Jute
Not to forget the Marquis de Sade

[avag...@gmail.com]

Jeff's PROB Scotch. I'm not. The Scotch Daniels are a hardy self reliant lot. Jeff works(ed) in TV ?

Riders not cleaning the chain are indescribbable.

[Joe Riel]

Thanks, that's informative. I was thinking it was the brittle plastic
stuff that makes life miserable.

--
Joe Riel

[avag...@gmail.com]

Thanks, that's informative. I was thinking it was the brittle plastic
stuff that makes life miserable.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$

never saw one. I will consult OVERFLOW and backup.
however, in the course if these mechanisms, one would imagine the GLIDER functions best with a clean freshly oiled chain....oil not wax/oil...maybe Teflon/wax or the yellow stuff with plastic marbles ?

not old gunk left on by a gadabout.

[avag...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 11:30:27 PM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:
> Is this the Jeff Daniels who whines that I don't post any of my technical articles on RBT?
>
> On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 8:16:10 PM UTC, avag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > if I read this, I'll find a humor piece ?
>
> Now we know why.
>
> Andre Jute

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

I wasn't trying to annoy you god forbid

I suggested in context that developing a mechanism qualified for RBT status...that is not buying stuff n boltin it on yet this is a grade up from not bolting stuff on...but not by much

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per jbeattie:

>
>I'll defer to someone who actually owns one -- this fanboy site has the difference under 300g: http://www.bikestation.fi/info/en/brands/rohloff/speedhub/weight/ It's even lighter than the Alfine system!

I don't know what to say about that.

I weighed every part... even used a balance scale.

Either I messed up big-time or they're comparing the Rohloff to a much
heavier der system than SRAM 9.0.... or maybe they left something out.

Dunno...
--
Pete Cresswell

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Lou Holtman:

>The whole issue of weight is ridiculous considering the intended use of a
>Rohloff hub so is the discussion of the costs.

The weight is nothing to me. But a guy I talked to who races said that
the extra two pounds on the hills would take him out of the competition
for the first few places.

OTOH, I'm older than dirt and when I was riding in Valley Forge with a
guy who looked to be in this thirties and not in all that bad shape he
volunteered that I was killing him on the hills.

What was really going on, of course, was that he was not getting the
gears he needed while I was. If he had the same access to any gear any
time, he would have had to stop and wait for me at the crest of each
hill.
--
Pete Cresswell

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per (PeteCresswell):

>Either I messed up big-time or they're comparing the Rohloff to a much
>heavier der system than SRAM 9.0.... or maybe they left something out.
>
>Dunno...

A fourth possibility: maybe Rohloff hubs made today are lighter than
those made 10 years (or however long I've had mine) ago.
--
Pete Cresswell

[AMuzi]

On 1/17/2015 5:07 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 4:50:56 PM UTC, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 1/17/2015 10:42 AM, Joe Riel wrote:
>>> Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cyc...@yahoo.ca> writes:
>>>> On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 1:53:23 AM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 4:12:24 AM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/16/2015 9:38 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 10:10:07 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
>>>>>>> wrote:

-snip snip-

>> Neither system is 'best' IMHO and as always we celebrate
>> diversity of taste and equipment here at RBT.

> Some of these clowns demonstrate an exceedingly negative way to "celebrate".

That was an attempt at humor mixed with a call to civility.

There's no reason to come to blows or spew invective over
which end of the eggshell one breaks first. Or over bicycle
equipment.

[AMuzi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xf832PCT8I

http://www.dutchbikebits.com/hesling-excelle-full-chainguard

Here's a selection of various styles:
http://www.veclo.com/bike-parts/chain-cases.html

[jbeattie]

You're so literary! Andre should appreciate the reference to his (Anglo)Irish homeboy.

Apart from differing tastes, people have different needs and budgets. The OTC bikes with IGH (particularly belt-driven) typically lack a high end, and you need to dump a lot of money to get the same range as a derailleur bike. The same goes with dynomo lights (although you never get the output of a mid-priced LED battery light). Most people don't have the cash or the need for a Rohloff hub, but it is clearly superior for certain applications. Same goes with the Schmidt hub. But if you have the money, go dog go! Keep the Euro strong. I could see building a hard-tail 29er with a Rohloff hub when my kids gets out of college.

Even more O.T., I just saved $10-12 USD when I found and NOS leather washer for my Silca track pump among my spare parts. I probably bought it for $1 a million years ago. I'm doing clean-up and equipment restoration today -- and probably a ride when someone calls. Yesterday was two hours in pouring rain on a non-Rohloff drive train -- and a chain that sounded like walking on gravel. No chain case would have kept it dry/lubricated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo-XnPJRJVg

A conventional system just means more clean-up time, but it works fine except for the brakes. I had some really terrifying moments on the water-slides down the local hills. I wish my CAAD 9 rain bike had discs -- but otherwise, it is a lot of fun for fast rides in the rain.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Ralph Barone]

Agreed, unless you're one of those heathen Big-endians.

[James]

On 18/01/15 08:43, Andre Jute wrote:
>
> So, perhaps you'd get 15000km if you fitted a hub gearbox, stainless
> gears and a Chainglider, and you'd have the time you saved from
> transmission maintenance to ridealot, as your monicker claims.

According to my Strava records, I'm within 1000km of hitting 15,000km
using 2 chains and one cassette, and cooking in a wax based lubricant.
Paraffin wax and EP gear oil.

I used to get about 5000km from a single chain and cassette and oil and
messy cleaning.

Now I take a chain off, put it in the pot and cook it while I install
the other chain, then take the cooked chain out, let it cool and put it
in a zip lock bag for about 3 months.

--
JS

[Andre Jute]

On Sunday, January 18, 2015 at 5:04:00 PM UTC, AMuzi wrote:
> On 1/17/2015 5:07 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 4:50:56 PM UTC, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 1/17/2015 10:42 AM, Joe Riel wrote:
> >>> Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cyc...@yahoo.ca> writes:
> >>>> On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 1:53:23 AM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 4:12:24 AM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>> On 1/16/2015 9:38 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 10:10:07 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> -snip snip-
>
> >> Neither system is 'best' IMHO and as always we celebrate
> >> diversity of taste and equipment here at RBT.
>
> > Some of these clowns demonstrate an exceedingly negative way to "celebrate".
>
> That was an attempt at humor mixed with a call to civility.

I noticed the call to civility. You won't have much luck with those clowns. They're were born anti-social trash and they'll die anti-social trash.

> There's no reason to come to blows or spew invective over
> which end of the eggshell one breaks first. Or over bicycle
> equipment.

Quite. You tell that scum, Muzi.

Andre Jute
Careless comma, moi?

[Andre Jute]

See, it's people like you, bragging about 7500km from a chain, making me feel I was doing something really badly wrong to reach only a fifth that far on a chain (a Shimano rep told my LBS, "He's mashing those chains to death" -- rubbish!), who set me off on this path of seeing whether technology is any help in extending transmission life. There was one guy on another forum who routinely got 10,000km from a chain, commuting in British wet weather; he too had several chains used in rotation. From there it was but a short step to wondering how good the factory lube in chains really is, which is where I'm now at. Next it might be smart to see if a tempered stainless chain lives three times as long as my current setup with KMC steel chains of good quality, but nowhere near the top of their price tree.

[Duane]

10 speed?

--
duane

[Duane]

I encountered a modbus controller the other day that used middle endian.
Now that's uncalled for.
--
duane

[Andre Jute]

On Sunday, January 18, 2015 at 7:17:30 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
> On Sunday, January 18, 2015 at 9:04:00 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 1/17/2015 5:07 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 4:50:56 PM UTC, AMuzi wrote:
> > >> On 1/17/2015 10:42 AM, Joe Riel wrote:
> > >>> Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cyc...@yahoo.ca> writes:
> > >>>> On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 1:53:23 AM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:
> > >>>>> On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 4:12:24 AM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 1/16/2015 9:38 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 10:10:07 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > -snip snip-
> >
> > >> Neither system is 'best' IMHO and as always we celebrate
> > >> diversity of taste and equipment here at RBT.
> >
> > > Some of these clowns demonstrate an exceedingly negative way to "celebrate".
> >
> > That was an attempt at humor mixed with a call to civility.
> >
> > There's no reason to come to blows or spew invective over
> > which end of the eggshell one breaks first. Or over bicycle
> > equipment.
>
> You're so literary! Andre should appreciate the reference to his (Anglo)Irish homeboy.

It's no longer politically correct to admit you ever read someone who advocated cannibalism. Too many humorless feminists about.

> Apart from differing tastes, people have different needs and budgets. The OTC bikes with IGH (particularly belt-driven) typically lack a high end, and you need to dump a lot of money to get the same range as a derailleur bike.

Representative spreads from memory: Shimano 8-speed IGH about 308%, Rohloff 14s around 526%, modern derailleur system around 625%. Most of the people I know with Rohloffs are old or current roadies who tour with the Rolloff, and almost without exception they have already taken advantage fo the Rohloff strength to move the gear range down at the expense of the top end. 38x16 has for a while now been a sort of Rohloff default but people noticeably switching to 36x17 as they grow older or their camping kit gets more luxurious. The next step is stump-pulling. Even on my hills, I'm sticking at 38x16, but then I have an electric motor, which fills in the steepest bits of my hills (I have no safe flats whatsoever any more). There are some comparative gearing tables of several individual customized Rohloff setups at http://coolmainpress.com/BICYCLINGHebieChainglider.html -- you can adapt the top setup for 700C wheels, or there are 26in wheel setups that I calculated for pedal pals. If anyone wants a table for a fave setup, let me know and I'll publish a custom table for them. The variables are chainwheel teeth, cog teeth, tyre diameter at your accustomed pressure in whatever units you like, cadence rpm. Rohloff sets an upper torque limit effectively reached roundabout 36x17 (wheel size is irrelevant to this limit).

>The same goes with dynomo lights (although you never get the output of a mid-priced LED battery light). Most people don't have the cash or the need for a Rohloff hub, but it is clearly superior for certain applications. Same goes with the Schmidt hub.

I'm not so sure the Schmidt dynamo hub is justified. I have one (it is standard equipment on a couple of my bikes), and several Shimano dynamo hubs, and in operation I prefer the Shimano. The longevity of the Schmidt is attractive but irrelevant to most of us, and the thing is likely to cost several multiples of a Shimano dynohub.

>But if you have the money, go dog go! Keep the Euro strong. I could see building a hard-tail 29er with a Rohloff hub when my kids gets out of college.

Rohloff maes a very nice red hub, and Schmidt makes a SON dynohub to match it.

> Even more O.T., I just saved $10-12 USD when I found and NOS leather washer for my Silca track pump among my spare parts. I probably bought it for $1 a million years ago.

Heh-heh. I use a modern equivalent of the Silca, though already venerable, the SKS Rennkompressor, and with it I ordered enough spares to see me out. The thing with such spares is finding them when you need them... Two or three strokes on it and a 60x622 balloon, an enormous volume of air, is fully pressurized to 2 bar, because the thing is aimed at quickly pressurizing a racing tyre to 16 bar or something equally ridiculous. Good photo at http://www.amazon.com/Sks-Pompe-Pied-Rennkompressor-Eqpo067c/dp/B002YEGI92%3FSubscriptionId%3DAKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q%26tag%3Dduckduckgo-osx-20%26linkCode%3Dxm2%26camp%3D2025%26creative%3D165953%26creativeASIN%3DB002YEGI92, but there overpriced by several multiples. (I paid less than 50 Euro for mine.)

Andre Jute

[Andre Jute]

I was about to ask what the devil a "Big-endian" is. Now I think it may be smarter to be ignorant.

Andre Jute
You wouldn't hit a little old intellectual with spectacles, would you?

[Ralph Barone]

I find the following clusters of phrases ironic.
"Call to civility", "clowns, anti-social trash"

"No reason to ... spew invective", "scum"

If you want to see civility, it might help to practice it more often.
There. I hope that was civil.

[Ralph Barone]

Really? As a writer, I would have assumed you would have got the pun more
- Swiftly...

[Andre Jute]

On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 1:52:55 AM UTC, Ralph Barone wrote:

> Andre Jute <> wrote:
> > On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 1:10:39 AM UTC, Duane wrote:

> >> Ralph Barone <invalid> wrote:

> >>> AMuzi <> wrote:
> >>>> On 1/17/2015 5:07 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 4:50:56 PM UTC, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>> On 1/17/2015 10:42 AM, Joe Riel wrote:

> >>>>>>> Sir Ridesalot <> writes:
> >>>>>>>> On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 1:53:23 AM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 4:12:24 AM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2015 9:38 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 10:10:07 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>> -snip snip-
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Neither system is 'best' IMHO and as always we celebrate
> >>>>>> diversity of taste and equipment here at RBT.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Some of these clowns demonstrate an exceedingly negative way to "celebrate".
> >>>>
> >>>> That was an attempt at humor mixed with a call to civility.
> >>>>
> >>>> There's no reason to come to blows or spew invective over which end of
> >>>> the eggshell one breaks first. Or over bicycle equipment.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Agreed, unless you're one of those heathen Big-endians.
> >>
> >> I encountered a modbus controller the other day that used middle endian.
> >> Now that's uncalled for.
> >> --
> >> duane
> >
> > I was about to ask what the devil a "Big-endian" is. Now I think it may
> > be smarter to be ignorant.
> >
> > Andre Jute
> > You wouldn't hit a little old intellectual with spectacles, would you?
>
> Really? As a writer, I would have assumed you would have got the pun more
> - Swiftly...

That pun I got and dismissed in advance in my post above starting "It's no longer politically correct to admit you ever read someone who advocated cannibalism."

I was wondering if perhaps some Swiftian logic escaped into programming (thanks for the hint, Ralph, even if unnecessary -- I make annual pilgrimage to the Dean's pulpit).

Andre Jute
Duh

[James]

Campy 10s

--
JS

[Andre Jute]

On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 1:49:43 AM UTC, Ralph Barone wrote:

Good, you caught it. I was wondering when I wrote it whether it was unsubtle enough. By the way, the word you want isn't "cluster" but "juxtaposition".

> "Call to civility", "clowns, anti-social trash"
>
> "No reason to ... spew invective", "scum"
>
> If you want to see civility, it might help to practice it more often.
> There. I hope that was civil.

You practice enough hypocrisy for both of us, Ralphie, so there's no need for me to put myself out.

Andre Jute
Relentless rigor -- Gaius Germanicus Ceasar

[James]

On 19/01/15 11:10, Duane wrote:

WTF? Was it big endian for the lower word followed by another big
endian for the high word?

--
JS

[James]

Unless you're a hulk, I don't get this mashing business. I don't pedal
all that fast all the time out training, and regularly stop and then
start in a big-ish gear and out of the seat to get moving again.

How much can you leg press or squat? 50, 100, 150kg?

I can easily leg press 150+kg, and got to over 200kg after some months
at the gym. Note that on the press incline this is not equivalent to a
squat and doesn't include self weight.

Sorry to be an annoyance. Oh, and I can't get 7500km from one chain and
lube application, so not quite comparable in that regard.

--
JS

[James]

On 19/01/15 11:07, Andre Jute wrote:

Oh, and I use 175mm cranks, so plenty of leverage on the chain...

--
JS

[Andre Jute]

Is this Big Endian or big endian? Does it make a difference.

Anyhow, I have worked out what a lower case big endian is, though not many survive. Picture a guy in overalls, with an emery cloth spilling out of his back pocket. He's a fitter and turner from the days when car crankshifts were literally fitted and turned *in* on their bearings, and the most important end of the job, the big end, was handled by the time-served fitter, while the middle bearings (on crappy little English cars only one or none) were handled by his apprentices. The time to produce a qualified fitter and turner was 7 years.

Yes. Those days aren't coming back.

Andre Jute
A long memory

[James]

On 19/01/15 12:52, Andre Jute wrote:

> Yes. Those days aren't coming back.
>
> Andre Jute
> A long memory
>

"A long memory" is enough storage to hold 32 bits on most PCs.

--
JS

[David Scheidt]

James <james.e...@gmail.com> wrote:

There have been floating point arictectures where each word is little
endian, but the words were were stored most significanft first (big
endian). Why? to inspire madness, no doubt.

--
sig 108

[Lou Holtman]

It is easy to get 5000 plus km out of a Campy 10 speed chain on a road bike especially if you live in a dry climate even without taken it off, cooking and other time consuming regime. It is a religion thing and look what any religion brings us lately and in the past. The one thing that fuckes up the livetime of a chain is no lubing at all, bad chain quality and whether you riding in the wet and in muddy condition a lot. On my road bikes I can get 5000 plus km out of my chains easy, but on my off road bikes 1500 km when I used cheap SRAM chains. I improved that to 2000-2500 using Campy C9 chains. These are better chains but more expensive. No other cleaning and lubing regime can improve that other than hosing the dirt off, wipe/air blow it dry and relube it again. I have to do that after every ride on my off road bikes. Stainless steel does nothing to improve matters. Stainless steel is soft and not hardable. Even stainless steel chains have carbon steel pins because they have to be hardened. Sprocket same story. Stainless steel doesn't rust, that is all and a little rust on the outerplates doesn't matter. I'm telling my riding buddies that drying your bike after hosing it down is as important as getting rid of the mud, that is why I spend an extra 10 minutes to air blow my off road bikes dry.

Lou

[Duane]

Pretty damn good. I'm fairly fastidious about maintenance but I'm usually
lucky to get 5000km out of a chain. I can stretch a cassette to every 2nd
or 3rd chain though.

I'm using Shimano chains and Ultegra 10 speed cassettes. BTW the prices
they get for these make this thread not trivial.

--
duane

[Duane]

This one was 2-1-4-3.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/middle-endian

--
duane

[Lou Holtman]

There is no more fastidious maintanance than wiping off the dirt and relubing to improve chain livetime.

Lou

[Duane]

What I mean is that after most rides, I wipe the chain, put a drop of
oil on each link, run it through the gears and wipe off the excess.
Doing this has increase my chain life from ~2000km to ~4500- 5000km and
takes five minutes on my stand. Apparently James' maintenance extends
his chain life to 3 times what I get. Given the price of 10s chains and
cassettes, this is not trivial.

[sms]

On 1/16/2015 6:38 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

<snip>

> Yep. I guess that's an advantage for stainless. The rust that
> collects on high carbon gears is what creates the abrasive compound.
> However, road dirt makes a good substitute so I don't see an advantage
> to stainless here.

Stainless cogs won't last as long. Stainless is much weaker than high
carbon steel.

Just keeping a chain clean and lubed is pretty trivial and cheap with
the proper equipment. Just keep the chain clean and avoid wax-based
lubrication and you'll get 10,000 miles out of a chain no problem. No
need for those fancy chain lubes or cleaning solutions, and no need to
remove the chain from the bicycle. Heed Sheldon's, Jobst's and Mike J's
advice. Avoid hot wax at all costs and use a proper chain lubricant.
Kerosene, rags, chain lube spray, and a chain cleaning device is all
that's needed.

Chain maintenance by Sheldon Brown:
<http://www.sheldonbrown.com/chains.html>. The advice on the lube type
is spot on. Waxing is a bad idea and, not surprisingly, the best lube to
use on a chain is a lube designed for a chain!

I love going to Interbike just to see what new company has sprung up
that has repackaged industrial lubricants into tiny bottles for naive
cyclists with more money than sense. And what new, usually awful,
concoctions of energy gels and powders, and solids are being marketed. I
am not sure which is the best chain lube, but it's either the
coffee-scented Cafe Dumonde Tech
<http://teamjva.com/portfolio/detail/cafe-dumonde-tech/> or the Bike
Butter <http://www.gunbutter.com/bikebutter/>. They can also be consumed
for extra energy.

[Lou Holtman]

My guess is that you ride more often in the rain/wet conditions and Campy 10 speed chains are more durable than 10 speed Shimano chains. Like I said I get 7500 km out of a 10 speed Campy chain easily with no special attention on my roadbikes. The chain never comes off the bike for cleaning and it gets relubed every 250-400 km or after every wet ride after hosing the dirt off and drying with a waxed based lube a collegue of mine developed. The waxed base lube doesn't attract dirt, can be cleaned with cold water and fills up the open spaces within a link. Maybe that is my secret but I use the same lube on my off the road bikes and my chains there last only 1500-2000 km. That convinced me that riding in the wet and mud is the key factor for the the lifetime of the chain. Not the lube or the cleaning regime. Once the muck is inside the chain you are fucked. If that is the default riding conditions, like it is with my off road bikes, buy cheap chains, measure the wear regularly and replace the chain on time so you save your cassette and chainrings if you want to. Cleaning with filthy solvents or degreaser doesn't increase the lifetime, on the contrary the dirt on the outside is transported to the inside of the chain by doing that. I did some experiments in the past to prove that. Like I said cleaning and lubing is a religion and religion is believing in a fairy tale IMO. If you find comfort or piece of mind in it no problem but it is what it is.

Lou

[Duane]

I don't ride in wet or muddy conditions very often. I get caught in the
rain but it's not a daily thing. I suspect that the Campi chains last
longer than the Ultegra ones. I'm not sure if Campi chains are
compatible with Ultegra drive trains. Something to look into.

I'm ok with the 5000km chain life balanced with the amount of
maintenance that I do to achieve it. What got me originally was not so
much the chain replacement but wearing out the cassettes because I
wasn't changing the chain when I should.

[Lou Holtman]

Duane schreef op 19-1-2015 om 17:08:

That is why checking the wear regularly is so important. Buy a Rohloff
or a other brand caliber that makes this an easy job. Make it a routine
before relubing your chain and replace the chain on the safe side. I
think 5000 km on a Ultegra chain isn't too bad so I think you don't do
anything wrong.
I compared the quality of a SRAM PC something (a 9 speed) and a Campy
C9 chain on my Singlespeed, now equipped with a Rohloff hub, by running
a chain half Campy and half SRAM so the conditions and lubing were
exactly the same. The difference was amazing. The SRAM part worn about
1.5-2 times faster than the Campy C9 part so not all chains are the same
which TOUR magazine found out in their tests. Campy chains are very good
but Shimano chains catched up with their 11 speed chains especially the
DA ones. Suprisingly the 105 models came out better than the Ultegra ones.

Lou

[Frank Krygowski]

On 1/19/2015 10:49 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>
>
> My guess is that you ride more often in the rain/wet conditions and
Campy 10 speed chains are more durable than 10 speed Shimano chains.
Like I said I get 7500 km out of a 10 speed Campy chain easily with
no special attention on my roadbikes. The chain never comes off the
bike for cleaning and it gets relubed every 250-400 km or after every
wet ride after hosing the dirt off and drying with a waxed based lube
a collegue of mine developed. The waxed base lube doesn't attract dirt,
can be cleaned with cold water and fills up the open spaces within a link.

I've mentioned before this article from decades ago, that found wax
lubes to give much longer chain life:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/16972296@N08/8101576421/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/16972296@N08/8101591380/

I don't keep track of my chain life mileage, but I'm much happier using
a wax/oil mix, which I apply with the chain on the bike.

> Maybe that is my secret but I use the same lube on my off the road bikes
and my chains there last only 1500-2000 km. That convinced me that riding
in the wet and mud is the key factor for the the lifetime of the chain.
Not the lube or the cleaning regime. Once the muck is inside the chain
you are fucked.

I think that's accurate. But I wonder what is the effect of riding (on
road, anyway) with fenders and a front mud flap. I suspect there's some
measurable benefit regarding chain life. Not as much as a full chain
case (of any design), I imagine; but some benefit. And of course,
fenders are useful in other ways.

> Like I said cleaning and lubing is a religion and religion
is believing in a fairy tale IMO. If you find comfort or piece of mind
in it no problem but it is what it is.

I think that's a little unkind to both those who clean and lube chains,
and those who are religious. Regarding the chain cleaner folks, you may
simply have information they haven't found yet. And regarding the
religious folks, who really knows? You may come back as their pet
hamster. ;-)

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 1/19/2015 5:53 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
> On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 12:25:28 AM UTC+1, James wrote:
>> On 18/01/15 08:43, Andre Jute wrote:
>>>
>>> So, perhaps you'd get 15000km if you fitted a hub gearbox, stainless
>>> gears and a Chainglider, and you'd have the time you saved from
>>> transmission maintenance to ridealot, as your monicker claims.
>>
>> According to my Strava records, I'm within 1000km of hitting 15,000km
>> using 2 chains and one cassette, and cooking in a wax based lubricant.
>> Paraffin wax and EP gear oil.
>>
>> I used to get about 5000km from a single chain and cassette and oil and
>> messy cleaning.
>>
>> Now I take a chain off, put it in the pot and cook it while I install
>> the other chain, then take the cooked chain out, let it cool and put it
>> in a zip lock bag for about 3 months.
>>
>> --
>> JS
>
> It is easy to get 5000 plus km out of a Campy 10 speed chain on a road
bike especially if you live in a dry climate even without taken it off,
cooking and other time consuming regime. It is a religion thing and look
what any religion brings us lately and in the past.

For example, the preservation of written knowledge by monks working
through the dark ages; the architecture of the great cathedrals; most of
the extant music of Europe up until at least Bach's time; most of the
great artworks of that time. Even Isaac Newton felt his work was an
attempt to decode how God accomplished things.

> The one thing that
fuckes up the livetime of a chain is no lubing at all, bad chain quality
and whether you riding in the wet and in muddy condition a lot. On my
road bikes I can get 5000 plus km out of my chains easy, but on my off
road bikes 1500 km when I used cheap SRAM chains. I improved that to
2000-2500 using Campy C9 chains. These are better chains but more
expensive.

And of course, all those sorts of decisions can be (roughly) evaluated
based on cost vs. benefit. Or they could be, if we had decent data. I
just re-posted an old article by an author who actually took
measurements. We could use more of that. (Not that I'm volunteering,
of course!)

> No other cleaning and lubing regime can improve that other
than hosing the dirt off, wipe/air blow it dry and relube it again.
I have to do that after every ride on my off road bikes.

Not to disagree, except many of us choose not to do that, based on
cost-benefit judgments, with "cost" including the trouble of the
after-ride routine. If someone decides they'd rather just park the bike
and replace chain & cogs more often, that's fine, I suppose.

> Stainless
steel does nothing to improve matters. Stainless steel is soft and not
hardable.

Several people have now posted that erroneous fact. There are many
varieties of stainless steels. Some are quite hardenable indeed. Look
up martensitic stainless, for example. Whether or not they're used in
bike chains, I can't say. But it's bad to over-generalize.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[avag...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, January 18, 2015 at 8:10:39 PM UTC-5, Duane wrote:

> James <james.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 18/01/15 08:43, Andre Jute wrote:
> >>
> >> So, perhaps you'd get 15000km if you fitted a hub gearbox, stainless
> >> gears and a Chainglider, and you'd have the time you saved from
> >> transmission maintenance to ridealot, as your monicker claims.
> >
> > According to my Strava records, I'm within 1000km of hitting 15,000km
> > using 2 chains and one cassette, and cooking in a wax based lubricant.
> > Paraffin wax and EP gear oil.
> >
> > I used to get about 5000km from a single chain and cassette and oil and messy cleaning.
> >
> > Now I take a chain off, put it in the pot and cook it while I install the
> > other chain, then take the cooked chain out, let it cool and put it in a
> > zip lock bag for about 3 months.
>

> 10 speed?
>
> --
> duane

lllllllllllllllllllll

3 speed

[avag...@gmail.com]

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

time to head out to Borrego and GLamis....how bout the Glamis-Blythe ride ?

[Lou Holtman]

Frank Krygowski schreef op 19-1-2015 om 18:22:

I take my chances with the religious people. What a misery was brought
to mankind in the name of some kind of religion and still is.

Lou

[Andre Jute]

At the time I was using Shimano Nexus gear, which is what came in the internal gear hub groupset. This was trendy-priced low-level crap, but I didn't know better. The mashing thing is rubbish, as I said in reporting it. I suspect the salesman wasn't really from Shimano but from the wholesaler and he just said the first thing that came into his mind to avoid giving me a new chain (I wasn't asking for one, and I wasn't there, but that may be how the LBS represented my remark to him). The LBS switched me to SRAM PC1 or PC10 (whichever is the base chain in their lineup) and that gave about a 20% improvement but was still crap, so that I'm not surprised at all to see Lou report that an SRAM chain he tested wasn't fabulous.

> How much can you leg press or squat? 50, 100, 150kg?

No man, while I'm a 200 pound survivor of various bloodsports (rugby, auto and power boat racing, circumnavigations under sail, polo, artic circle dogsledding, parachuting, suchlike reckless pursuits), I'm absolutely certain that in my prime I never could lift anything like 150kg. Sometimes, on the farm, I'd help, and the way I'd handle a 220 pound bag of grain wasn't by a power lift, but by getting some momentum going and swinging it about.

> I can easily leg press 150+kg, and got to over 200kg after some months
> at the gym. Note that on the press incline this is not equivalent to a
> squat and doesn't include self weight.

Jesus. If I tried that now, I'd be dead in the next instant.

> Sorry to be an annoyance.

Not at all. I could have been clearer. But I honestly did wonder if I did something wrong when I first read of these guys getting umpteen multiples of my own mileage. Also, I lubed with white wax, and could see the little balls of wax in the bottom of the big Dutch plastic chances I used then (not the Chaingliders I use now) and they came off the chain grey, clearly contaminated with ground aluminium. It wasn't just the chains I had to replace at 15-1600km, it was the chainring and the sprocket as well.

>Oh, and I can't get 7500km from one chain and
> lube application, so not quite comparable in that regard.

Well, I can't either. I swapped my last chain out a bit early, partly to protect the cogs, partly because I was heading for heart surgery and I couldn't bend over the bike too often and no longer than a couple of minutes at a time. That chain reached 4506km. I was satisfied: this is near enough 3x what I managed before I started developing the Jute System, which is based on a throwaway remark by Sheldon about factory lube being superior to anything you can buy, my extensive experience with chaincases of various designs, and a close inspection of the Hebie Chainglider, together with the availability, by mail-order, of superior chains from KMC, and stainless gears from Surly and elsewhere. There is now an even better chain from KMC than the X8 I use, the X1... Maybe when I fit it, I'll get to your 7500km! But my target is 10K, like a commuter with an open chain in England's bad weather that I found on the Thorn forum regularly achieved.

La Systeme Jute has been exceedingly successful for me; it's a pity that people are talking about the Rolloff, because that's incidental (any hub gearbox will do in my system, or even no gears, as in a single speed; I just happened to have a Rohloff on my development bike); it's even a pity we're talking about increased chain life (but that's my fault for the headline), because what actually matters is that *chain maintenance is reduced to zero*. My time, the last time it was available by the hour several decades ago, was a grand sterling an hour door to door. But even if your time is worth only the minimum wage, and you take a zen attitude to maintenance, it is time you could instead spend riding.

Andre Jute

[Andre Jute]

That's all true, but as those who've read even a little history know, the great thing the Church did in the Middle Ages was, as virtually the only literate parties, to spread agricultural best practice. All of our wealth, our pure physical tallness, and our health (and American obesity), can be traced back to the Church's communication channels. The Church, if you want to be flip about it, was the Medieval Internet.

Andre Jute
So important not to leave out the main fact

[sms]

On 1/19/2015 7:08 AM, Duane wrote:

> What I mean is that after most rides, I wipe the chain, put a drop of
> oil on each link, run it through the gears and wipe off the excess.

That's about all that's necessary, but the problem with most oils is
that dropping them onto each link just puts oil onto the outside of the
link and it doesn't penetrate inside. But the thin oils quickly are
flung out.

Follow Sheldon's advice:

"The problem with lubricating conventional chains is that thick
lubricants can't penetrate into the inaccessible crannies where they are
really needed, but thin lubricants don't last long enough. There is a
family of popular chain lubricants that deal with this by mixing a thick
oil-type lubricant with a volatile solvent. The resulting mix is thin
enough to get some penetration by capillary action, then the solvent
evaporates and leaves the thick oil behind. This type of lube is easy to
apply, and is very popular for that reason."

<http://www.solomotoparts.com/PJ1-Black-Label-Chain-Lube/>. There are
many types of this lube available, just get the one for non-O ring chains.

I don't keep track of miles per chain but I think that I've replaced a
chain maybe once in the last 40 years over many tens of thousands of
miles. But I am not using the very thin chains since the largest rear
gear cluster I have is an 8 speed.

I also follow Sheldon's advice on cleaning (though I was cleaning chains
that way long before I read his site). "The on-the-bike system has the
advantage that the cleaning machine flexes the links and spins the
rollers. This scrubbing action may do a better job of cleaning the
innards." Actually for an extremely dirty chain, off-the bike is better
because you can use more solvent and change it less often. With those
chain cleaning devices it takes multiple solvent changes before the
solvent runs clean, but that's because it's actually getting the grunge
out from between links and rollers, something that soaking and shaking
the chain doesn't as well. John Allen advises having a "dummy
drivetrain" where you install a chain for cleaning using the cleaning
machine. This is also a good idea because you won't have to wipe off any
solvent that drips from the chain onto the frame.

Above all, avoid wax:

"When wax was popular, we'd get customers coming in all the time
complaining about shifting problems on their bikes. Removed the wax and
lubed with conventional stuff and voila, shifting back to normal." Mike
Jacoubowsky, co-owner of Chain Reaction Bicycles.

"Wax is not mobile and cannot return to a location from which it has
been removed by rotation of one part on another." Jobst Brandt, author
of The Bicycle Wheel

"If you use dry lube or wax, follow product directions and use it often.
In some cases, dry lube should be used for every ride. It wears off very
quickly and no new lube can flow to the critical wear areas." Craig
Metalcraft, manufacturer of Super Link III.

"Downsides of the wax approach include the fact that it is a great deal
of trouble, and that wax is probably not as good a lubricant as oil or
grease." Sheldon Brown

[Duane]

Yeah, I seem to get a bit less out of the Ultegra than the 105 that came
stock on my bike. I switched to Ultegra when the LBS didn't have an
11-28t in stock except an Ultegra 6700. The bike came stock with a 12-27.

I have a cheapo chain tester and should probably invest in a better one.
I don't completely trust it and use a ruler sometime to verify it but
in all fairness, I've never had it be much off from the hi-tech one at
the LBS.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 1/19/2015 2:22 PM, sms wrote:
> ...I think that I've replaced a

> chain maybe once in the last 40 years over many tens of thousands of
> miles.

Incredible!


--
- Frank Krygowski

[jbeattie]

On a pure price (and not a shifting/performance) basis, my standard x10.93 KMC chain costs less than half a Veloce from my local source. http://www.universalcycles.com/shopping/index.php?category=533

It lasts approximately 75% as long as the Veloce. http://www.cantitoeroad.com/assets/images/products/docs/connex_by_wippermann/Chainwear_Test_10_Speed_10-JUN-2010.pdf

Those wear numbers may be different for current production chains. Significantly, the KMC has its new "stretch-proof" magical treatment, which makes the chain "extremely durable" -- I know this because the box says so. http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/7/3/4/3/7/5/webimg/596199340_o.jpg

The Veloce box says nothing about being "extremely durable." http://i00.i.aliimg.com/wsphoto/v0/1680088500/Campagnolo-font-b-VELOCE-b-font-10-Speed-chain-font-b-bicycle-b-font-bike-chain.jpg

QED

Anyway, paying twice as much for a chain probably won't get you twice the lifespan -- at least for chains >$20. It will probably get you a lighter chain (by 7 grams with the KMC and Veloce) and perhaps one that shifts better, but its the rare chain that doesn't shift well enough.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Lou Holtman]

> http://www.universalcycles.com/shopping/index.php?categoryS3

>
> It lasts approximately 75% as long as the Veloce.
> http://www.cantitoeroad.com/assets/images/products/docs/connex_by_wippermann/Chainwear_Test_10_Speed_10-JUN-2010.pdf
>
>
> Those wear numbers may be different for current production chains.
> Significantly, the KMC has its new "stretch-proof" magical treatment,
> which makes the chain "extremely durable" -- I know this because the box
> says so. http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/7/3/4/3/7/5/webimg/596199340_o.jpg
>
> The Veloce box says nothing about being "extremely durable."
> http://i00.i.aliimg.com/wsphoto/v0/1680088500/Campagnolo-font-b-VELOCE-b-font-10-Speed-chain-font-b-bicycle-b-font-bike-chain.jpg
>
> QED
>
> Anyway, paying twice as much for a chain probably won't get you twice the
> lifespan -- at least for chains >$20. It will probably get you a lighter
> chain (by 7 grams with the KMC and Veloce) and perhaps one that shifts
> better, but its the rare chain that doesn't shift well enough.
>
> -- Jay Beattie.

Only thing that counts is that is works for you. Friend rides 20000 km a
year. He brings his bike to the LBS at the beginning of each season and
tells him to replace everything needed. Most of the time it is a chain and
a cassette and sometimes a chainring. He can't be bothered by maintanance
other than lubing his chain for 150 euros per year. That works for him. I
can argue with that.
--
Lou

[avag...@gmail.com]

ok but the gears ? Cress sez he has 10 on his hub...but if you ride A-B-C

then 1-2 gears wear...like on a cassette. Then yawl have an $$$ hub with your main gears worn off.

James Under has the mileage. I wud believe that's max.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 1/19/2015 4:14 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>
> Anyway, paying twice as much for a chain probably won't get you twice the
lifespan -- at least for chains >$20.

Diminishing returns. Very common.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B. Slocomb]

There are stainless alloys that contain up to 1.1% carbon and even the
softer alloys will work harden, often much quicker then the craftsman
expects :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 09:59:24 +0700, John B. Slocomb
<sloc...@invalid.com> wrote:

>There are stainless alloys that contain up to 1.1% carbon and even the
>softer alloys will work harden, often much quicker then the craftsman
>expects :-)

I'm not sure it matters. The problem is that almost all the wear is
on the chain pin, which by necessity must be softer than the roller
and side plates. Explanation and guesswork follows.

In order to assemble the chain, the pin must be press fitted through
the outer side plates. The side plate has to be hardened to prevent
the pin from elongating the hole during normal use. If the pin were
also hardened (or case hardened) it would not be possible to assemble
the chain using an interference fit. One might be able to insert the
pin with brute force, but that might also distort the side plates. So,
the pin has to be slightly softer than the side plates.

When pin and roller are rotating, any abrasive grit in between will
wear down both pin and roller by different amounts. Because the
roller can be made harder, and because it rotates, the roller wear is
less deep. However, the softer pin will wear over a smaller, thus
deeper area, producing almost all of the chain "stretch".

Therefore, with an all stainless steel chain, hardening the side
plates will do nothing for reducing pin wear. Hardening the roller
might have a minor effect, but since the pin will wear much faster, by
the time it becomes an advantage, the pin is worn well beyond the
point of no return. Hardening the pin will reduce wear substantially,
but the necessity of having a soft pin for assembly makes that a
difficult proposition.

One possible way is to make a chain that cannot be disassembled, where
the pin cannot be removed. Instead of an interference press fit, the
pin is shrunk by cooling, while the side plates a heated to expand the
hole. The chain is then assembled and when it hits room temperature,
is essentially permanently assembled. One might be able to remove the
pin with brute force, but they will have difficulties getting it back
in without the hot/cold trick. The advantage is that one can then use
hardened stainless pins, which should last much longer than the
non-hardened pins.

Another way that I might make this work is by progressive hardening of
the pin. That's where the middle section of the pin is as hard as
possible, while the ends are softer. The center section would also
need to be slightly smaller diameter than the ends to avoid jamming
during assembly. The roller would need to have a matching profile. I
have only a bad guess(tm) as to how this can be fabricated and this is
going to be a rather expensive chain.

There's also the problem of what is actually doing the damage. The
consensus seems to be that it's road grit mixed with grease. My
suspicion is that there's also quite a bit of metal shaving happening
from the side plates, and near the pin to roller interface when the
chain is run at an angle. Grab a chain and bend it to the side, and
see the metal to metal contact. One is the side plates rubbing
against each other. The other is the concentration of force on the
ends of the pin and bushing (instead of being distributed equally
along the bushing length). I'll guess(tm) that both of these will
eventually produce some grinding compound.

--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Andre Jute]

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 6:05:27 AM UTC, Phil W Lee wrote:
> Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> considered Sun, 18 Jan 2015 17:43:15

> Don't worry Andre, you've always shown a remarkable resistance to
> anything that might prevent you from being ignorant.

Why, thank you, Phil. I knew you would grasp my finer points after a decade or so, though the "so" has dragged on a bit, but I assure you I never despaired of your eventual enlightenment.

Andre Jute
An innocent abroad among the rowdy roadies

[James]

That's what I meant.

--
JS

[Duane]

I know. I included the link because I liked the description " perverse
byte orders".

--
duane

[John B. Slocomb]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 23:07:30 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 09:59:24 +0700, John B. Slocomb
><sloc...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>There are stainless alloys that contain up to 1.1% carbon and even the
>>softer alloys will work harden, often much quicker then the craftsman
>>expects :-)
>
>I'm not sure it matters. The problem is that almost all the wear is
>on the chain pin, which by necessity must be softer than the roller
>and side plates. Explanation and guesswork follows.
>
>In order to assemble the chain, the pin must be press fitted through
>the outer side plates. The side plate has to be hardened to prevent
>the pin from elongating the hole during normal use. If the pin were
>also hardened (or case hardened) it would not be possible to assemble
>the chain using an interference fit. One might be able to insert the
>pin with brute force, but that might also distort the side plates. So,
>the pin has to be slightly softer than the side plates.
>

I believe that on Shimano (at least) the 9 speed and larger pins are
"riveted" rather then just a press fit. But even a press fit can be
manages so as not to cause excessive distortion to the plates.

>When pin and roller are rotating, any abrasive grit in between will
>wear down both pin and roller by different amounts. Because the
>roller can be made harder, and because it rotates, the roller wear is
>less deep. However, the softer pin will wear over a smaller, thus
>deeper area, producing almost all of the chain "stretch".
>
>Therefore, with an all stainless steel chain, hardening the side
>plates will do nothing for reducing pin wear. Hardening the roller
>might have a minor effect, but since the pin will wear much faster, by
>the time it becomes an advantage, the pin is worn well beyond the
>point of no return. Hardening the pin will reduce wear substantially,
>but the necessity of having a soft pin for assembly makes that a
>difficult proposition.

Well yes, in theory. the smaller diameter will wear more then the
large diameter but I'm not sure about the relative hardness and I
don't have the equipment to check.

However the fact is that modern 9 speed and up chains don't work the
way you appear to envision it. The side plates have an inner raised
rim, or hub, the roller rides on and the pin simply serves to hold the
link together.
Sheldon gives an explanation and some pictures and to check on him I
disassembled a short section of chain apart (and by gorry, he was
right :-)

I think that the question of just how much relative motion is there
between the roller and its supporting "hub" and the pin may be an
indication of what is happening. It seems to me, just sitting here
and not bothering to go and look (its dark out there) that there is
relative little movement that would cause wear on the pin and rather
more movement between the roller and the "hubs" on the interior side
of the side plates.

Perhaps it is pedantic But I doubt that very much wear takes place on
the pin itself and the "hubs" on the side plates and the interior of
the roller are where the most wear takes place.

But regardless, chains do wear and from my experience it is very much
a matter of dirt. A motorcycle primary chain, running in a sealed case
in an oil bath will last as long as the motorcycle. A 6-plex chain
driving the draw works on a oil drilling rig draw works, capable of
hoisting say 500 tons, lasts for years, running totally enclosed in an
oil bath. and I suspect that a bicycle chain under the same conditions
would be very similar. In the motor cycle example above, the primary
chain almost never gives problems while the rear chain, exposed to
dirt and weather, may require changing as often as once a year.

My personal opinion is that bicycle chains are a consumable. And my
response to those who complain about chain cost would be similar to
J.P. Morgan's response to someone who asked him how much it cost to
maintain his yacht, "if you have to ask you can't afford it" :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B. Slocomb]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 20:56:56 +1000, James <james.e...@gmail.com>

In any event I really would like someone to show me the middle end of
something, a length of rope perhaps :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[James]

On 19/01/15 20:53, Lou Holtman wrote:
> On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 12:25:28 AM UTC+1, James wrote:
>> On 18/01/15 08:43, Andre Jute wrote:
>>>
>>> So, perhaps you'd get 15000km if you fitted a hub gearbox,
>>> stainless gears and a Chainglider, and you'd have the time you
>>> saved from transmission maintenance to ridealot, as your monicker
>>> claims.
>>
>> According to my Strava records, I'm within 1000km of hitting
>> 15,000km using 2 chains and one cassette, and cooking in a wax
>> based lubricant. Paraffin wax and EP gear oil.
>>
>> I used to get about 5000km from a single chain and cassette and oil
>> and messy cleaning.
>>
>> Now I take a chain off, put it in the pot and cook it while I
>> install the other chain, then take the cooked chain out, let it
>> cool and put it in a zip lock bag for about 3 months.
>>
>

> It is easy to get 5000 plus km out of a Campy 10 speed chain on a
> road bike especially if you live in a dry climate even without taken
> it off, cooking and other time consuming regime.

By 5000km my chains and cassettes were completely stuffed while using
oil to lube, cleaned regularly, and living in a dry climate. Oil
collects dust, and dust abounds in a dry climate. Oil and dust turns to
grinding paste. This doesn't happen so much using wax.

> It is a religion
> thing and look what any religion brings us lately and in the past.

> The one thing that fuckes up the livetime of a chain is no lubing at
> all, bad chain quality and whether you riding in the wet and in
> muddy condition a lot. On my road bikes I can get 5000 plus km out of
> my chains easy, but on my off road bikes 1500 km when I used cheap
> SRAM chains. I improved that to 2000-2500 using Campy C9 chains.

Yes, wet and muddy conditions wear them fast.

> These are better chains but more expensive. No other cleaning and

> lubing regime can improve that other than hosing the dirt off,
> wipe/air blow it dry and relube it again. I have to do that after
> every ride on my off road bikes.

Boy-o-boy. What a religion. I get home, hang my bike up and the job is
done.

> Stainless steel does nothing to

> improve matters. Stainless steel is soft and not hardable. Even
> stainless steel chains have carbon steel pins because they have to be
> hardened. Sprocket same story. Stainless steel doesn't rust, that is
> all and a little rust on the outerplates doesn't matter. I'm telling
> my riding buddies that drying your bike after hosing it down is as
> important as getting rid of the mud, that is why I spend an extra 10
> minutes to air blow my off road bikes dry.
>

More religious chain care rituals I see.

--
JS

[James]

On 19/01/15 21:53, Lou Holtman wrote:

> On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 12:38:57 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote:
>> James <james.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 19/01/15 11:10, Duane wrote:

>>>> James <james.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 18/01/15 08:43, Andre Jute wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, perhaps you'd get 15000km if you fitted a hub gearbox, stainless
>>>>>> gears and a Chainglider, and you'd have the time you saved from
>>>>>> transmission maintenance to ridealot, as your monicker claims.
>>>>>
>>>>> According to my Strava records, I'm within 1000km of hitting 15,000km
>>>>> using 2 chains and one cassette, and cooking in a wax based lubricant.
>>>>> Paraffin wax and EP gear oil.
>>>>>
>>>>> I used to get about 5000km from a single chain and cassette and oil and messy cleaning.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now I take a chain off, put it in the pot and cook it while I install the
>>>>> other chain, then take the cooked chain out, let it cool and put it in a
>>>>> zip lock bag for about 3 months.
>>>>

>>>> 10 speed?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Campy 10s
>>
>> Pretty damn good. I'm fairly fastidious about maintenance but I'm usually
>> lucky to get 5000km out of a chain. I can stretch a cassette to every 2nd
>> or 3rd chain though.
>>
>> I'm using Shimano chains and Ultegra 10 speed cassettes. BTW the prices
>> they get for these make this thread not trivial.
>>
>> --
>> duane
>
> There is no more fastidious maintanance than wiping off the dirt and relubing to improve chain livetime.
>

> Lou
>

Good idea - leave the dirt that's worked into the rollers and joints to
grind away at the pins, etc.

Exactly why wiping and relubing isn't good enough.

--
JS

[James]

On 20/01/15 01:49, Lou Holtman wrote:
> On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 4:08:36 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote:

>> What I mean is that after most rides, I wipe the chain, put a drop
>> of oil on each link, run it through the gears and wipe off the
>> excess. Doing this has increase my chain life from ~2000km to
>> ~4500- 5000km and takes five minutes on my stand. Apparently
>> James' maintenance extends his chain life to 3 times what I get.
>> Given the price of 10s chains and cassettes, this is not trivial.
>
> My guess is that you ride more often in the rain/wet conditions and
> Campy 10 speed chains are more durable than 10 speed Shimano chains.
> Like I said I get 7500 km out of a 10 speed Campy chain easily with
> no special attention on my roadbikes. The chain never comes off the
> bike for cleaning and it gets relubed every 250-400 km or after every
> wet ride after hosing the dirt off and drying with a waxed based lube
> a collegue of mine developed. The waxed base lube doesn't attract
> dirt, can be cleaned with cold water and fills up the open spaces
> within a link. Maybe that is my secret but I use the same lube on my
> off the road bikes and my chains there last only 1500-2000 km. That
> convinced me that riding in the wet and mud is the key factor for the
> the lifetime of the chain. Not the lube or the cleaning regime. Once
> the muck is inside the chain you are fucked. If that is the default
> riding conditions, like it is with my off road bikes, buy cheap

> chains, measure the wear regularly and replace the chain on time so

> you save your cassette and chainrings if you want to. Cleaning with
> filthy solvents or degreaser doesn't increase the lifetime, on the
> contrary the dirt on the outside is transported to the inside of the
> chain by doing that. I did some experiments in the past to prove
> that. Like I said cleaning and lubing is a religion and religion is
> believing in a fairy tale IMO. If you find comfort or piece of mind
> in it no problem but it is what it is.
>

> Lou
>

Ah - at last. You also use a wax based lube that doesn't attract dirt.
So actually we are on the same page here. The only difference is I
use a connex quick link and immerse the chain in molten wax every month
or so, where as you apply a solvent based wax lube more frequently.

--
JS

[James]

For the record I don't do wet rides where I can avoid it and I don't do
additional chain cleaning with my hot wax. I just take the chain and
put it in the hot wax, wait until it's all heated up, I may stir it a
bit, then take it out and hang it on a nail while it cools.

It feels quite stiff after it has cooled, and for the first 5 minutes
there is a bit of wax thrown off.

Job done.

--
JS

[James]

On 20/01/15 21:05, Duane wrote:

>
> I know. I included the link because I liked the description " perverse
> byte orders".
>

:)

--
JS

[Frank Krygowski]

On 1/20/2015 2:07 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 09:59:24 +0700, John B. Slocomb
> <sloc...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> There are stainless alloys that contain up to 1.1% carbon and even the
>> softer alloys will work harden, often much quicker then the craftsman
>> expects :-)
>
> I'm not sure it matters. The problem is that almost all the wear is
> on the chain pin, which by necessity must be softer than the roller
> and side plates. Explanation and guesswork follows.
>
> In order to assemble the chain, the pin must be press fitted through
> the outer side plates. The side plate has to be hardened to prevent
> the pin from elongating the hole during normal use. If the pin were
> also hardened (or case hardened) it would not be possible to assemble
> the chain using an interference fit. One might be able to insert the
> pin with brute force, but that might also distort the side plates. So,
> the pin has to be slightly softer than the side plates.

I don't think this is true.

You're correctly describing an interference fit between the ends of the
pin and the side plates. But yielding of the components isn't necessary
for interference fits. Elastic deformation is all that's really
necessary. The amount of elastic deformation depends on the dimensions
(especially the amount of interference) and the modulus of elasticity,
but the latter isn't really affected by hardness.

I don't think the side plates need the hardness - or at least, the very
closely related wear resistance - of the pin. So I wouldn't be
surprised if the pins were significantly harder than the plates. In
fact, some ductility is probably nice in the side plates to have them
more resistant to fracture if someone jams a missed shift.

It's not easy to measure hardness on something as tiny as a chain pin,
though, so we may do a lot more speculating than we'd prefer.

> There's also the problem of what is actually doing the damage. The
> consensus seems to be that it's road grit mixed with grease. My
> suspicion is that there's also quite a bit of metal shaving happening
> from the side plates, and near the pin to roller interface when the
> chain is run at an angle. Grab a chain and bend it to the side, and
> see the metal to metal contact. One is the side plates rubbing
> against each other. The other is the concentration of force on the
> ends of the pin and bushing (instead of being distributed equally
> along the bushing length). I'll guess(tm) that both of these will
> eventually produce some grinding compound.

Here are a couple good photos of worn elements in a bike chain:
http://sheldonbrown.com/chains.html#stretch


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Lou Holtman]

Would you clean this bike before you hang your bike up?
http://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-ESFeXPDMGuY/VJb14FLmxlI/AAAAAAAAFtc/jiaiT52j7Xg/s2048-no/IMG_0851.JPG

>
>> Stainless steel does nothing to
>> improve matters. Stainless steel is soft and not hardable. Even
>> stainless steel chains have carbon steel pins because they have to be
>> hardened. Sprocket same story. Stainless steel doesn't rust, that is
>> all and a little rust on the outerplates doesn't matter. I'm telling
>> my riding buddies that drying your bike after hosing it down is as
>> important as getting rid of the mud, that is why I spend an extra 10
>> minutes to air blow my off road bikes dry.
>>
>
> More religious chain care rituals I see.

That is not religion but common sense:

http://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-oem3pk49bHQ/UOmXmCAsTTI/AAAAAAAAEEM/QsMmz8Rsr5U/s2048-no/IMAGE_284D4BE3-85BB-437F-AEE6-0023DE998CBA.JPG

I can make a picture like that from november to the end of februari after
my off road trips most of the times.




--
Lou

[Lou Holtman]

You can't get the dirt out that worked into the rollers and joints. You can
try to prevent that by using a waxed based lube but once it is in you have
to live with that.

--
Lou

[James]

I don't always get into wet conditions while riding my off road bike.
It's often dry. If it's been wet and muddy, I hose the bike and squirt
the chain with some wet lube - but then I don't ride off road much. In
fact the chain on my MTB is the original and I've never taken it off.
It's probably only done a few hundred kilometers - maybe a thousand.

Besides, Andre was talking about a bicycle that he uses on the road, as
I was. Off road bicycles are typically used in very different
conditions, and as such require different maintenance "rituals".

>
>>
>>> Stainless steel does nothing to
>>> improve matters. Stainless steel is soft and not hardable. Even
>>> stainless steel chains have carbon steel pins because they have to be
>>> hardened. Sprocket same story. Stainless steel doesn't rust, that is
>>> all and a little rust on the outerplates doesn't matter. I'm telling
>>> my riding buddies that drying your bike after hosing it down is as
>>> important as getting rid of the mud, that is why I spend an extra 10
>>> minutes to air blow my off road bikes dry.
>>>
>>
>> More religious chain care rituals I see.
>
> That is not religion but common sense:

Oh, I see. When you wash the bike, dry it with an air hose and re lube
the chain with a special wax formula your mate concocted it's common
sense. When I take a chain off with a quick link about once a month and
cook it in a hot wax bath, that's religion.

Not so much hypocrisy, please.

>
> http://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-oem3pk49bHQ/UOmXmCAsTTI/AAAAAAAAEEM/QsMmz8Rsr5U/s2048-no/IMAGE_284D4BE3-85BB-437F-AEE6-0023DE998CBA.JPG
>
> I can make a picture like that from november to the end of februari after
> my off road trips most of the times.
>

My last off road adventure everything came back covered in dust. Dry
lube is the go in those conditions.

--
JS