Old 04-07-14, 08:45 PM
  #22  
FBinNY 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Rochelle, NY
Posts: 38,546

Bikes: too many bikes from 1967 10s (5x2)Frejus to a Sumitomo Ti/Chorus aluminum 10s (10x2), plus one non-susp mtn bike I use as my commuter

Mentioned: 139 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5703 Post(s)
Liked 2,433 Times in 1,346 Posts
Originally Posted by IthaDan
I'm on board, but I think use of the word 'maximum' to define the length of a chain is dangerous. It's a method that works fine 99.9%, but when it doesn't, he results are disastrous (and expensive), and its most decidedly NOT a 'maximum' length. To me maximum implies that all the other bases are covered, not that there's still a risk of ripping the hanger off your frame. .
There are many ways to skin a cat. I'm pretty consistent in reminding people that the minimum is an absolute minimum, while the maximum can be fudged if running systems over rated capacity.

OTOH, the manufacturers are clear about capacity ratings, so folks treading in the over cap. never-never land where the max, is less than the min. need to understand the real estate and act accordingly.

BTW- this doesn't even broach the question of those who diligently cut a chain to a safe minimum length, then swap wheels to one with a larger cassette and destroy the bike.

There's no way to ensure a best result for every situation, and folks need to know WTF they're doing, or accept that they're living in a minefield.
__________________
FB
Chain-L site

An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.

Just because I'm tired of arguing, doesn't mean you're right.

“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN

WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
FBinNY is offline