Chain outside widths?
Pete Biggs
Please list all/any you know (in mm).
Also, I assume the inside width for all of them is 3/32". Is that correct
including 10sp?
thanks v much
~PB
[x-posted to rec.bicycles.tech & uk.rec.cycling]
Pete Biggs
> What are the OUTSIDE widths of typical 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10-speed
> chains?
note. I appreciate that 8sp chain is NOW supplied for 5, 6 and 7sp bikes,
but were chains ever fatter on 5 and 6sp bikes?
~PB
Colin Nelson
"Pete Biggs" <pLime{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote in message
news:bie289$7lspo$1...@ID-144931.news.uni-berlin.de...
Just happen to have this bit of information to hand as I`ve been faffing
around this afternoon swapping old for new (chain) and discovering that
Sram links can be removed by carefully pushing rivet nearly out and then
resetting rivet using chain tool and joining new chain in normal manner.
Most 6 speed and all 7 speed sprocket sets require "narrow" chains with
outside width of 7.2-7.4mm. these chains are adequate for most 8 speed
sprockets but may be slightly noisier than the "super narrow" chains
which are always 7.2mm. wide, these can also be used on any other
sprocket sets. Nine speed chains measure 6.6-6.8mm. and they can also be
used on other sprockets .
This information "lifted" from Barnett's at http://www.umdbike.com and I
hope that it's of some use to you.
Colin Nelson
>
dianne_1234
Some are listed here: http://www.geocities.com/kwanseng/weight.html#chains
CHAIN MAKE & MODEL 1 LINK 108 LINKS WIDTH COMMENTS
Sachs PowerLink II 3g n/a quick chain connector
Viking titanium 2.20g 237g Thanks, Richard
Regina 50-SL 2.31g 250g 7.29mm used but clean
Regina 50-SL 2.39g 258g 7.29 used and dirty
Campagnolo Record 10s 2.40g 259g 2001
Campagnolo Chorus 9s 2.57g 277g used
SRAM PC89R 2.58g 279g
Shimano Dura-Ace 2.59g 279g 6.60 9 speed
TAYA TB-500 2.68g 290g 7.32 cheap one: black outer, sil inner
KMC SuperShuttle 2.69g 291g 7.09 CN-SS91S all silver
Shimano IG all silver 2.73g 295g 7.06
Sedis Sedisport GT 2.74g 296g 7.37 from Sachs New Success group
Sachs/Sedis PG 2.75g 297g 7.11 sil/blk, square riveted
Shimano Dura-Ace 8s 2.76g 298g 7.16 sil/sil
Sedis SC-R80 2.76g 298g silver, narrow 8 speed
Sachs SC M 55 2.76g 298g 7.11 sil/blk, square riveted
Sachs PC41 2.76g 298g 7.16 gry/blk, step riveted, 8s
Sachs/Sedis PG 2.77g 299g 7.11 sil/blk, step riveted
D.I.D. Super Lanner 2.77g 299g bushless
D.I.D. SuperShift 2.77g 299g 7.21
SunTour XC-Pro AP 2.82g 305g small one
TAYA TB-700 2.83g 306g 7.32 middle model: sil outer, blk inner
KMC SuperShuttle 2.83g 305g
Shimano CN-HG90 2.84g 307g 7.37 Ultegra. Sil/blk.
Sedis Sedisport AT 2.86g 309g
Campagnolo Contax 2.89g 312g 1992
Rholoff SLT-99 2.91g 314g 6.88
Shimano CN-HG70 2.93g 317g uncut
Shimano CN-7400 2.95g 319g 7.34 Dura-Ace UG, sil/sil
D.I.D. Lanner Index 2.97g 320g
Shimano 600EX UG 7s 2.98g 322g 1991
Regina CX 3.00g 324g 7.98 sil/blk
SunTour XC-Pro 3.03g 328g
Izumi "Index" 3.04g 328g bushless, slotted sides
HKK Z 3.06g 331g 7.62 for SunTour AccuShift 6s
Sedis track 3.36g 363g 8.61 blk
Izumi track 4.94g 534g all chrome, drilled plates
Bruni
is6.1mm)
Tom
--
Bruni Bicycles
"Where art meets science"
brunibicycles.com
410.426.3420
Pete Biggs <pLime{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote in message
news:bie0m9$8fb5o$1...@ID-144931.news.uni-berlin.de...
Simon Brooke
> "Pete Biggs" <pLime{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote in message
> news:bie289$7lspo$1...@ID-144931.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > I wrote:
> > > What are the OUTSIDE widths of typical 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10-speed
> > > chains?
> >
> > note. I appreciate that 8sp chain is NOW supplied for 5, 6 and 7sp bikes,
> > but were chains ever fatter on 5 and 6sp bikes?
> Just happen to have this bit of information to hand as I`ve been faffing
> around this afternoon swapping old for new (chain) and discovering that
> Sram links can be removed by carefully pushing rivet nearly out and then
> resetting rivet using chain tool and joining new chain in normal manner.
> Most 6 speed and all 7 speed sprocket sets require "narrow" chains with
> outside width of 7.2-7.4mm. these chains are adequate for most 8 speed
> sprockets but may be slightly noisier than the "super narrow" chains
> which are always 7.2mm. wide, these can also be used on any other
> sprocket sets. Nine speed chains measure 6.6-6.8mm. and they can also be
> used on other sprockets .
> This information "lifted" from Barnett's at http://www.umdbike.com and I
> hope that it's of some use to you.
I've recently got myself a new hill bike - a Cannondale Jekyll 700 -
after riding a Scott Sawtooth for fifteen years. Mostly I love the
Cannondale, but I find myself wondering what the point of nine cogs on
the back really is. I find that if I tackle a steep slope on any
normal surface (gravel, mud, dirt) I'm losing traction long before
I've got down into the bottom gear (which is substantially lower than
direct drive) - a hill you need that to pull up you can't go up
anyway.
I also find I'm making some crunchingly bad changes. The Scott, which
has the very first generation Shimano indexed push-button gear levers
and their associated mechanisms still - after years of abuse - changes
reliable and smoothly every time. I am, of course, exceedingly used to
it, but my memory is it always did. The Cannondale also has Shimanos,
with fifteen years more development... and most of the time, of
course, they shift smoothly. But just now and then I bollox it up
horribly with awful crunching noises, and I'm wondering how much the
relative weakness of the narrower chain has to do with this. I also
wonder about the fragility of that chain and how it's going to
wear. Of course, it may be that I'm not used to the new bike, and it
may be that the adjustment of the changers is just a bit off.
I'd hate to give you the impression I'm criticising the
Cannondale. I'm not. I'm a lot faster on it, both uphill and down, and
can get through difficult sections which I just could not manage on
the Scott, and generally I'm having fun. But I'm wondering whether to
swap the 9 cog cassete and changer for seven cog ones, and whether
this would give me a more robust and reliable transmission.
What are people's feelings? Is the progressive increase in numbers of
rear cogs really a good thing? Or are nine coggers just too fragile
for thrashing through the forest?
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; ... exposing the violence incoherent in the system...
Gearóid Ó Laoi/Garry Lee
the loop is too tight it makes changes sticky. Get a long lazy loop. I've
found this terrific.
Richard Goodman
> I find myself wondering what the point of nine cogs on
> the back really is. I find that if I tackle a steep slope on any
> normal surface (gravel, mud, dirt) I'm losing traction long before
> I've got down into the bottom gear (which is substantially lower than
> direct drive) - a hill you need that to pull up you can't go up
> anyway.
Nine cogs isn't really considered a 'huge number' these days, it's virtually
the norm. It is possible to find a use for the lowest gear, although it
does depend on factors such as surface, steepness, load, and riding style
including body position, and cadence. I must admit when I first got my bike
I thought low gear was so low I'd never use it but I have since discovered
otherwise.
>
> I also find I'm making some crunchingly bad changes.
...
> most of the time, of
> course, they shift smoothly. But just now and then I bollox it up
> horribly with awful crunching noises,
This could be due to how you're using the gears or it could be due to
adjustment. You don't want to be using big-big or small-small combinations.
If you do the chainline will be bent and the change may not be smooth. It
can also depend on when you change - if you only change when your cadence
and speed has dropped to a virtual standstill and try to rapidly drop down a
number of cogs - clicking through too many gears at a time - you'll get
this.
>and I'm wondering how much the
> relative weakness of the narrower chain has to do with this. I also
> wonder about the fragility of that chain and how it's going to
> wear.
I don't think you can say nine speed chains are fragile or weak. Even ten
speed chains can take the power output of the likes of Armstrong and
Ullrich, or if you prefer, the output of any of the leading off-road XC
riders, whoever they are. Used correctly, your chain and gears are surely
able take all the power you're capable of putting through it.
....
> . I'm a lot faster on it, both uphill and down, and
> can get through difficult sections which I just could not manage on
> the Scott, and generally I'm having fun.
Well there you are then!
>But I'm wondering whether to
> swap the 9 cog cassete and changer for seven cog ones, and whether
> this would give me a more robust and reliable transmission.
>
Doubt it. You would be going to expense to downgrade your bike, and may
lose the benefits you say you have found with it. What's the point of that?
> What are people's feelings? Is the progressive increase in numbers of
> rear cogs really a good thing? Or are nine coggers just too fragile
> for thrashing through the forest?
Unless you have the strength and weight of a gorilla, they surely aren't too
fragile for thrashing through a forest!
Rich
Simon Brooke
> > I also find I'm making some crunchingly bad changes.
> ...
> > most of the time, of
> > course, they shift smoothly. But just now and then I bollox it up
> > horribly with awful crunching noises,
>
> This could be due to how you're using the gears or it could be due to
> adjustment. You don't want to be using big-big or small-small combinations.
No, no, I know this...
> If you do the chainline will be bent and the change may not be smooth. It
> can also depend on when you change - if you only change when your cadence
> and speed has dropped to a virtual standstill and try to rapidly drop down a
> number of cogs - clicking through too many gears at a time - you'll get
> this.
...and this (although, of course, when you hear a nasty noise you _do_
back off and this may make things worse).
> >and I'm wondering how much the
> > relative weakness of the narrower chain has to do with this. I also
> > wonder about the fragility of that chain and how it's going to
> > wear.
>
> I don't think you can say nine speed chains are fragile or weak. Even ten
> speed chains can take the power output of the likes of Armstrong and
> Ullrich, or if you prefer, the output of any of the leading off-road XC
> riders, whoever they are. Used correctly, your chain and gears are surely
> able take all the power you're capable of putting through it.
Yebbut, the good Mr Armstrong has a team of mechanics who probably
pretty much rebuild his machine every night. You can be pretty sure he
has a new chain every morning. The same goes, to a slightly lesser
extent, for those 'leading off-road XC riders'. My chain gets a lube
every two or three days and a clean once a fortnight or so. On my old
bike I fitted a new chain on average once a year. How often am I going
to need a new nine-speed chain? I'm not saying it _will_ be more
often. I just don't know. But the chain on an XC bike is exposed to
dust, grit and mud, all things which accelerate wear. What works for
highly maintained works team racing machines for a day or two may
nevertheless not be durable and forgiving enough for more casual use
over several months.
> >But I'm wondering whether to
> > swap the 9 cog cassete and changer for seven cog ones, and whether
> > this would give me a more robust and reliable transmission.
>
> Doubt it. You would be going to expense to downgrade your bike, and may
> lose the benefits you say you have found with it. What's the point
> of that?
_If_ it made it more reliable, that would be a benefit. You obviously
think it would not, which is useful to know.
Thanks for your comments, by the way. If my response seems aggressive,
it isn't meant that way.
Pete Biggs
> I've recently got myself a new hill bike - a Cannondale Jekyll 700 -
> after riding a Scott Sawtooth for fifteen years. Mostly I love the
> Cannondale, but I find myself wondering what the point of nine cogs on
> the back really is. I find that if I tackle a steep slope on any
> normal surface (gravel, mud, dirt) I'm losing traction long before
> I've got down into the bottom gear (which is substantially lower than
> direct drive) - a hill you need that to pull up you can't go up
> anyway.
That's not because you've got nine cogs but because some of those cogs are
too large for your liking (or because the granny chainring is too small).
Ok, if you are happy with the top gear, find the bottom too low, and don't
want the gears any more closely spaced, then nine sprockets may be too
many for you. Obviously not everyone likes that many gears. They're at
least good for road cycling, though, where a wide range AND closely spaced
gears really help maintain a good steady cadence.
> I also find I'm making some crunchingly bad changes. The Scott, which
> has the very first generation Shimano indexed push-button gear levers
> and their associated mechanisms still - after years of abuse - changes
> reliable and smoothly every time. I am, of course, exceedingly used to
> it, but my memory is it always did. The Cannondale also has Shimanos,
> with fifteen years more development... and most of the time, of
> course, they shift smoothly. But just now and then I bollox it up
> horribly with awful crunching noises, and I'm wondering how much the
> relative weakness of the narrower chain has to do with this.
Nothing.
> I also
> wonder about the fragility of that chain and how it's going to
> wear.
9sp chains are still strong enough for the most powerful riders. They
might wear slightly faster (I'm not sure) but it's nothing to worry about,
IMO.
> Of course, it may be that I'm not used to the new bike, and it
> may be that the adjustment of the changers is just a bit off.
You and your gears are bound to improve! :-)
~PB
Tim McNamara
"Richard Goodman" <ri...@NOSPAM.rsk.homechoice.co.uk> wrote:
> I don't think you can say nine speed chains are fragile or weak.
> Even ten speed chains can take the power output of the likes of
> Armstrong and Ullrich, or if you prefer, the output of any of the
> leading off-road XC riders, whoever they are. Used correctly, your
> chain and gears are surely able take all the power you're capable
> of putting through it.
I know that tends to sound impressive, but many tourists put out as
much or more power than pros. Pros have a high power to weight ratio,
tourists do not even though their absolute power may be every bit as
much as the pros. Their chains are under higher tension because
they're winching a lot more weight up the hills- not unusual for a
touring bike and rider with luggage to weigh 2 to 2 1/2 times a pro on
a pro-caliber bike.
In short, a tourist is more likely to find the weaknesses in a
drivetrain component than a pro is.
Joe Riel
> I know that tends to sound impressive, but many tourists put out as
> much or more power than pros.
Highly doubtful. Power, no; chain tension, yes. As you said,
tourists can generate higher chain tension because they have much
smaller gears [and weigh more].
Joe Riel
Terry Morse
> I know that tends to sound impressive, but many tourists put out as
> much or more power than pros.
That doesn't sound impressive, that sounds ridiculous. If you see a
tourist that can generate 400 watts for an hour, you're not looking
at a tourist.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/
David Kerber
tim...@bitstream.net says...
That's due to _force_, not power. I doubt many tourists can put out 400
watts even for a short sprint, while a top pro can do 400 for an hour or
more. A top pro sprinter can put out over 1800 watts for a few seconds.
--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!
REAL programmers write self-modifying code.
Bill Davidson
> Highly doubtful. Power, no; chain tension, yes. As you said,
> tourists can generate higher chain tension because they have much
> smaller gears [and weigh more].
I don't think it's even chain tension. The amount of chain tension
is directly a result of the amount of power the cyclist generates on
the down-stroke but the higher torque to the wheel is a result of
better leverage from the lower gearing.
--Bill Davidson
--
Please remove ".nospam" from my address for email replies.
I'm a 17 year veteran of usenet -- you'd think I'd be over it by now
Sheldon Brown
>
>> Highly doubtful. Power, no; chain tension, yes. As you said,
>> tourists can generate higher chain tension because they have much
>> smaller gears [and weigh more].
Bill Davidson wrote:
> I don't think it's even chain tension. The amount of chain tension
> is directly a result of the amount of power the cyclist generates on
> the down-stroke but the higher torque to the wheel is a result of
> better leverage from the lower gearing.
You're getting power, tension and torque confounded, and they're all
different things.
The chain tension is a function of only three things:
•How hard you press on the pedal
•Crank length
•Chainring radius
This thread may have actually suffered excessive snippage, but I think
we're still talking about stresses as they relate to chain wear and
potential chain breakage. These stresses are directly proportional to
chain tension, but have no particular relationship to either power or
torque.
Sheldon "Took Physics In High School, So He Knows This Stuff" Brown
+--------------------------------------------+
| We hardly find any persons of good sense |
| save those who agree with with us. |
| - Francois, Duc de la Rouchefoucauld |
+--------------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com
Dan O'Brasky
absolutely no advantage to this and no there is no strength advantage to
yesterday's chains. In fact the old ones are weaker and made from inferior
alloys. Indeed you first should invest in an avid rollamajig ($20) and get
an adjustment. The more cogs the better with smoother transitions possible.
If you don't need the high or low gears then get a different cog and perhaps
chainring set. Obviously it sounds as though you bought a bike with
predetermined parts or you took what you were offered. That is the problem
with purchasing a mass produced bike from a shop that thinks enmass rather
than individual set ups for each rider. Next time get a custom kit. You
will be much happier.
"Simon Brooke" <si...@jasmine.org.uk> wrote in message
news:87wucun4...@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk...
Joe Riel
> You're getting power, tension and torque confounded, and they're all
> different things.
>
> The chain tension is a function of only three things:
>
> 菱ow hard you press on the pedal
>
> 匹rank length
>
> 匹hainring radius
Specifically,
T = F*L/R
T = chain tension
L = crank length
R = chain wheel radius
L is more or less the same for all cyclists.
Given that the maximum force is essentially body weight,
a big guy with a tiny chain ring should be able to
generate the highest chain tension.
Joe Riel
Simon Brooke
> Joe Riel wrote:
>
> >> Highly doubtful. Power, no; chain tension, yes. As you said,
> >> tourists can generate higher chain tension because they have much
> >> smaller gears [and weigh more].
>
> Bill Davidson wrote:
>
> > I don't think it's even chain tension. The amount of chain tension
> > is directly a result of the amount of power the cyclist generates on
> > the down-stroke but the higher torque to the wheel is a result of
> > better leverage from the lower gearing.
>
> You're getting power, tension and torque confounded, and they're all
> different things.
>
>
> The chain tension is a function of only three things:
>
> 菱ow hard you press on the pedal
>
> 匹rank length
>
> 匹hainring radius
>
> This thread may have actually suffered excessive snippage, but I think
> we're still talking about stresses as they relate to chain wear and
> potential chain breakage. These stresses are directly proportional to
> chain tension, but have no particular relationship to either power or
> torque.
Tension I agree. Wear I'm not so sure of. Wear has got to be influenced
by the amount of dust/grit in the environment and the frequency (and
efficiency) with which the chain is cleaned. Given that the bearing
surfaces of a narrower chain are smaller, the pressure on those
bearing surfaces, given they're tranmitting the same amount of load,
must be higher, so it seems likely that the damage done by a given
quantity of, uhhhmmm, environmental abrasive will be worse.
Mountain bike chains run in pretty hostile environments.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Age equals angst multiplied by the speed of fright squared.
;; the Worlock
Robert Strickland
"Dan O'Brasky" <audi...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:irA4b.4922$9T1....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> why would you revert to 10 year discontinued components. No there is
> absolutely no advantage to this and no there is no strength advantage to
> yesterday's chains. In fact the old ones are weaker and made from
inferior
> alloys. Indeed you first should invest in an avid rollamajig ($20) and
get
> an adjustment. The more cogs the better with smoother transitions
possible.
> If you don't need the high or low gears then get a different cog and
perhaps
> chainring set. Obviously it sounds as though you bought a bike with
> predetermined parts or you took what you were offered. That is the
problem
> with purchasing a mass produced bike from a shop that thinks enmass rather
> than individual set ups for each rider. Next time get a custom kit. You
> will be much happier.
>
It's interesting that you can surmise that he "obviously" bought a bike with
predetermined parts. Moreover, so what? His problem doesn't sound like it
has anything to do with whether the parts were "predetermined" or "custom".
Parts is parts. Within certain parameters (which most shops understand) and
with a few exceptions (road shifters/mountain fd) most modern parts work
together exceptionally well. If his gearing is a little on the low side then
all he has to do is swap the cassette out for one that isn't quite so low.
Or set the bike up for a little loaded touring where those low gears will
come in handy :). As for the occasional grinding sound while shifting, I
can't see why the "predetermined" vs. "custom" dilemma would even come into
play. That problem, if there is one, is more likely to be that his
derailleur needs a little adjusting or that his chainline isn't what it
should be or that his shifting style needs a little modification.
Tim McNamara
Joe Riel <jo...@k-online.com> wrote:
Pros are faster than tourists, generally speaking, and the
naturalistic assumption tends to be that pros have higher power output.
Yet this is not really the case. For example, I have been tested on
an ergometer to have a higher peak power output than many pros at
around 1050 watts. My output at lactate threshold was about 400
watts, IIRC. But being 6'4" and weighing 205 lbs, my power to weight
ratio is much worse than even the lowest ranked pros. My body fat is
about 12%, the average pro is about 5%. Additionally, my VO2 max is
about 60% of Lance Armstrong's. Therefore I'm nowhere near as fast as
the slowest pros let alone the best.
IMHO the pros are faster than tourists not because of power output
alone but because of power-to-weight and VO2 max issues. Pain
threshold, lactate tolerance and motivation probably also are
significant factors. Efficiency may also be a factor- I ride about
6,000 miles most years whereas most pros ride at least two to three
times as many miles. I would presume that they are more efficient in
the mechanics of riding a bike than I am as a result.
Even within pro cycling one sees differences. Mario Cipollini
certainly produces much more power than Marco Pantani, as is evident
in their relative sprinting abilities- yet Cipo can barely get over
the mountains with the back of the bunch while Pantani is soaring away
off the front.
A number of years ago, the USCF went around the country with a test
rig and tried people out at random. I remember a report in the USCF
magazine that they found some guy in a mall who hit nearly 1400 watts
in a sprint simulation- in Birkenstocks. That's like Mario Cipollini
type output. They found lots of people who could post excellent power
numbers, numbers consistent with pro cyclists- yet few if any were
able to be top-level racing cyclists.
Tim McNamara
Terry Morse <tmo...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> > I know that tends to sound impressive, but many tourists put out
> > as much or more power than pros.
>
> That doesn't sound impressive, that sounds ridiculous. If you see a
> tourist that can generate 400 watts for an hour, you're not looking
> at a tourist.
Dunno- a lot of the guys I saw at PBP this year seemed to be able to
put out that kind of sustained power. A lot of this is simply what an
individual has the biological capacities to do.
Joe Riel
> In article <86smnh8...@k-online.com>,
> Joe Riel <jo...@k-online.com> wrote:
>
> > Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> writes:
> >
> > > I know that tends to sound impressive, but many tourists put out
> > > as much or more power than pros.
> >
> > Highly doubtful. Power, no; chain tension, yes. As you said,
> > tourists can generate higher chain tension because they have much
> > smaller gears [and weigh more].
>
> Pros are faster than tourists, generally speaking,
I think you can drop the qualification. Pros are faster than tourists.
> naturalistic assumption tends to be that pros have higher power output.
>
> Yet this is not really the case. For example, I have been tested on
> an ergometer to have a higher peak power output than many pros at
> around 1050 watts.
I don't doubt that there are people who can put out more instantaneous
power than quite a few, if not all, the pros, however, I wouldn't say
that they are cycling tourists riding as tourists. That is, in a
typical professional bike race, the peak power output of any [yes,
that's too general, but...] of the pros is higher than the peak power
output of a cycling tourist while touring.
Joe
Tim McNamara
Joe Riel <jo...@k-online.com> wrote:
> Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> writes:
>
> > In article <86smnh8...@k-online.com>,
> > Joe Riel <jo...@k-online.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> writes:
> > >
> > > > I know that tends to sound impressive, but many tourists put
> > > > out as much or more power than pros.
> > >
> > > Highly doubtful. Power, no; chain tension, yes. As you said,
> > > tourists can generate higher chain tension because they have
> > > much smaller gears [and weigh more].
> >
> > Pros are faster than tourists, generally speaking,
>
> I think you can drop the qualification. Pros are faster than
> tourists.
It's horses for courses. Tourists can finish Paris-Brest-Paris (1215
km) in under 44 hours. Not sure that all that many pros could do it
faster. I think I may be using a broader definition of "tourist" than
you are. I'm also not sure that many pros would be much faster than
many fit tourists with 60 lbs of luggage on the bike.
> > naturalistic assumption tends to be that pros have higher power
> > output.
> >
> > Yet this is not really the case. For example, I have been tested
> > on an ergometer to have a higher peak power output than many pros
> > at around 1050 watts.
>
> I don't doubt that there are people who can put out more
> instantaneous power than quite a few, if not all, the pros,
> however, I wouldn't say that they are cycling tourists riding as
> tourists. That is, in a typical professional bike race, the peak
> power output of any [yes, that's too general, but...] of the pros
> is higher than the peak power output of a cycling tourist while
> touring.
Not having specific numbers I can't confirm or refute that. I'll say
that I disagree with it, however.
Power output of pros has been measured (for example, it was published
in- IIRC- VeloNews that power testing showed that a rider riding a
flat stage in the Tour de France in the pack averages about 95 watts)
but at least as far as I know there hasn't been a lot of measurement
of tourists.
Chalo
> why would you revert to 10 year discontinued components. No there is
> absolutely no advantage to this and no there is no strength advantage to
> yesterday's chains. In fact the old ones are weaker and made from inferior
> alloys.
You've been smoking too much slick print, brother.
Bike chains never fail from overtension, but from excessive wear or
rivet damage at the sideplates. 9-speed chains are much worse than
7-speed ones in both these respects, having less projected bushing
area and more aggressively riveted links. Even if the alloys used are
better than in days past, which I doubt, the overall reliability of
chains has diminished since the days of Sedis chains.
> Indeed you first should invest in an avid rollamajig ($20) and get
> an adjustment. The more cogs the better with smoother transitions possible.
If 7-speed (or 6-speed, or whatever) gives overall range and
incremental steps that are acceptable to the rider, then adding more
rear sprockets hurts reliability in several ways-- accelerating chain
and sprocket wear, requiring more precise adjustment to deliver clean
shifting, unfavorably modifying chainline, and weakening the rear
wheel with excessive dish. It also dramatically diminishes
cross-compatibility of components.
Chalo Colina
Nick Payne
news:timmcn-C7857F....@gemini.visi.com...
a 22-tooth small chainring puts more stress on the chain than a road bike
with a 39-tooth small chainring. 39/22 times as much. However, even a good
sprinter isn't going to get near the breaking point of a derailleur chain.
See, for example, http://www.rohloff.de/index.php?p=TECHNIK/S-L-T%2099,
where Rohloff give the elastic limit of their derailleur chain as >7000N and
the failure point as >11000N.
Nick
Simon Brooke
> If 7-speed (or 6-speed, or whatever) gives overall range and
> incremental steps that are acceptable to the rider, then adding more
> rear sprockets hurts reliability in several ways-- accelerating chain
> and sprocket wear, requiring more precise adjustment to deliver clean
> shifting, unfavorably modifying chainline, and weakening the rear
> wheel with excessive dish.
Uh-huh. And when you've got a nine-speed cluster on one side and a
disk on the other, the dish on the rear wheel is beginning to look
worryingly slight.
I'll give it some thought. I think a seven speed rear probably is
enough for me.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Iraq war: it's time for regime change...
... go now, Tony, while you can still go with dignity.
Clive George
> chump...@hotmail.com (Chalo) writes:
>
> > If 7-speed (or 6-speed, or whatever) gives overall range and
> > incremental steps that are acceptable to the rider, then adding more
> > rear sprockets hurts reliability in several ways-- accelerating chain
> > and sprocket wear, requiring more precise adjustment to deliver clean
> > shifting, unfavorably modifying chainline, and weakening the rear
> > wheel with excessive dish.
>
> Uh-huh. And when you've got a nine-speed cluster on one side and a
> disk on the other, the dish on the rear wheel is beginning to look
> worryingly slight.
It may be worth bearing in mind that the majority of tandems these days come
with 9 speed, and it works for them.
(although the XT cassettes aren't strong enough for off road use - the
recommended ones are HG70, and the XT freehubs are also a bit fragile. But
the chain hasn't given any problems yet!).
cheers,
clive
David Damerell
>It may be worth bearing in mind that the majority of tandems these days come
>with 9 speed, and it works for them.
But surely with wider hubs overall, which leaves more room for extra
sprockets?
I just picked up a couple of spare 7-speed hubs before they're all gone.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Clive George
news:20o*WH...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >It may be worth bearing in mind that the majority of tandems these days
come
> >with 9 speed, and it works for them.
>
> But surely with wider hubs overall, which leaves more room for extra
> sprockets?
Not my MTB tandem - 135mm (the road one is 140mm). But the OP was worried
about chain and cog strength, for which the hub width is irrelevant.
cheers,
clive