Sincitycycler

Advantages of each?

What do track riders use?

dizzy101

3/32 is better

Read this entry on the Surlyblog

sivat

Track riders use 1/8". 3/32" is usually quieter and more efficient. My advise is to make the decision based on what cranks you are using. If your cranks have a 130bcd or smaller, it will be a lot easier to find good, inexpensive chainrings in 3/32". If your cranks are 144bcd, 1/8" chainrings are easier to find.

Tapeworm21

The advantage for a 1/8 chain on my drivetrain is simple. It actually fits on my chainring. They're cheap (SRAM single-speed chains) and easily replaceable. I pretty much destroyed one within 5 months, but for $15 I got a new one. Woopdy doo.

Or, go to Surlyblog. And since Surly doesn't even make a chainring suitable for a 1/8 chain, they MIGHT be a little bit bias.

roadfix

I use 1/8" chains because they're cheap and you can run anything with it, as my fixies are built up with combinations of 1/8 & 3/32 rings and cogs.

skinny

If you are using 1/8" chainrings or cogs, use 1/8" chains. If you are using 3/32" chainrings and cogs, use either 1/8" or 3/32" chains. Using a 1/8" chain on 3/32" chainring and cog will be a little noisier, but not much.

Track riders generally use 1/8" cogs, chainrings, and chains.

fiver

3/32 is what I would use unless I happened to have a 1/8 cog. I've heard arguments that 1/8" is stronger, but we all use 3/32" on our mountain bikes and climbing hills puts a hell of a lot more torque on your drive train than skidding a track wheel does. So I would choose 3/32 (aside from the cog issue) because your chain will be lighter and you will have a much wider selection in terms of quality (less selection in terms of colour though

vpiuva

I can't put my fingers on it, but IIRC Sheldon Brown recommends 3/32" rings, cogs, and chain for us non-track fixie/SS riders

sivat

Sheldon likes 3/32" because there is a lot more development put into 3/32" chains, so you can get a really good quality, 3/32" chain for pretty cheap. Since a lot of 1/8" chains are sold for the low end cruiser market, you have to go for an expensive, high end chain to get the same quality in 1/8".

Fredmertz51

I've been running a SRAM 1/8 chain on a Surly Stainless chain ring all summer. No problems. What am I doing wrong?

Tapeworm21

Losing your warranty.

wroomwroomoops

I have the opposite impression: I can have OK 1/8" chains for really, really cheap.

To the OP: my experience shows that 1/8" chainrings outlive their 3/32" counterparts by AT LEAST 3 TIMES! Hence, you save a boatload of moneyz if you go 1/8". Chainrings cost a lot.

Reason: it's not so much the difference in tooth width (1/8" vs. 3/32") as much as the fact that 3/32" chainrings have their teeth extremely thinned down at the tip. 1/8" have them nice and burly all the way to the top. This makes a huge difference. I mean, HEWGE! My estimate of 1:3 is very much on the conservative side - I am still using that 1/8" chainring with which my whole love affair with 1/8" drivetrains started. Let's see how long it lasts.

grolby

They might be biased, but they're certainly right. 3/32" chain = stronger, lighter, better for less money. Narrow chain is simply a better choice for 99% of the riders out there.

Thor29

If you actually read what the Surly guys say about chain size, you'll find that the reason they recommend 3/32 over 1/8 on their chainrings is due to tolerance stack up issues. You might still get a 1/2 to work on their rings. Regardless, I run 3/32 8 speed SRAM chains on my single speed mountain bike and on my fixed gear bike. Never had any problems.

wroomwroomoops

I'd like to challenge every single word in that sentence, but since I'm in a hurry, I'll just say: stronger? HAHAHA!

wroomwroomoops

Anyhow - why do you think track cyclists use 1/8" chains? Because they're stronger. Much stronger than 3/32". And having a 1/8" drivetrain will save you lots of money in the medium/long run, because chainring and cog will last much longer than 3/32" chainrings and cogs. Do I have to post pictures of two aluminum chainrings which I put the same amount of miles onto, one 3/32" the other 1/8"? You'll see on them that the 1/8" shows no signs of deformation (just the anodizing is a bit worn), while the 3/32" has its teeth deformed.

As I said, the problem is not as much the 3/32" to 1/8" difference in width, as much as the 3/32" teeth have those tiny-ass tips. They are designed to not last.

Sammyboy

I think the point is, a high quality 1/8th track chain might be stronger than an equivalent 3/32nd chain, but a cheap, low end 1/8th chain is NOT likely to be as good as an inexpensive 3/32 chain. If you buy a chain at your LBS, the 3/32 is likely to be reasonably good, but the 1/8th, if you're not at a track specific shop, is probably cheapie intended to be adequate on a kids bike.

wroomwroomoops

I disagree - a cheap 3/32" chain is crap just as a cheap 1/8" chain. I should know, I bought a ton of both lately, from China (but at a price so low that in the end it makes sense). The crappy 1/8" chains still outlive (by a little) the crappy 3/32" ones. Which, by the way, cost me exactly the same amount of money.

I think we'll have to live with our disagreement on this issue. Because I know I'm right

CdCf

The strength of a chain is in the roller part and in the side plates. Not the width of the gap. I don't have a 1/8" anywhere, so I can't check, but does it actually have thicker plates? Even if they are thicker, the choice of metal quality and treatment probably outweighs a slight difference in plate thickness.

wroomwroomoops

Of course!

Yes, they are thicker. Yes, the choice of metal quality and treatment outweiths a slight difference in plate thickness, but at parity of metal quality and treatment, the plate thickness determines the strength of the chain. And the difference is usually not slight anyway.

Sammyboy

I'm not sure we really have a disagreement. Why not go into your LBS, and by ask for one 1/8th chain, and one 3/32 chain, and see which is better. I quite agree that if you deliberately buy the crappiest you can, both will be appalling.