Cdy291

I had been using Dura Ace 10 speed chain for a while until the last chain I bought, which was a Sram 1090. I seems that life expectancy is nearly the same between the two chains but I always noticed how much smoother the Sram chain was than the Shimano. The Sram chain seemed to run quieter and shift smoother even a little dry than a freshly lubed Shimano. I always keep a few extra links of chain around and last night I was comparing the extra 4 or 5 links of Dura Ace and PG-1090 chain that I had and I noticed something different about the rollers. The Dura Ace rollers are not able to actually roll and are molded in with the side plates. On the Sram the rollers actually roll and are a separate piece between the side plates. I thing this contributes a lot to the Srams quietness. I Don't know about everyone else but I really think the Sram chain has a much better design.

tubescreamerx

That's odd, the rollers should be able to roll, on all chains. That's how they got their name and that's their function.

jcpups608

False.

If it's the 7801 chain the rollers do roll independently if they are maintained properly.
The rollers are not fixed to the plates.

Cdy291

On Shimano chains the rollers are just stamped out of the side plates.

Cdy291

I will go look again, but I can not see them moving.

jcpups608

I'm spinning the rollers of a spare 7801 chain with my fingers right now, as I write this.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but it's the truth.

I am interested in the smoothness of the sram chain though, has anyone else that has used both thought the sram was smoother and quieter than DA?

kensuf

I kind of like the 1070 chains myself. I'm not sure you need to splurge for the extra bling of the 1090. I'm doing a "durability test" on a 1050 right now, and it seems OK, but I think I still prefer the 1070.

As for smoothness of shifting, that's a matter of having a good chain and cassette. A worn chain won't shift properly no matter what you do. I never had a problem with DA chains, but the lower quality shimano chains (105, ultegra) never lasted particularly long.

Cdy291

The 1070 would be fine as long as you ride the bike a lot and keep the chain lubed. If the bike sits in a garage for a long time the inner plates on the 1070 could rust. But that isn't likely going to be a problem for most.

Psimet2001 

*sigh*

Cdy291

*Fart*

yogi13

That seems to be the opposite of conventional wisdom. Lots of folks running SRAM switch to KMC or other chains to reduce the noise of the SRAM drivetrain. I've got a SRAM Force gruppo on one bike, ultegra on the other, and the ultegra is much quieter, although to be honest I've never switched chains between the two. The SRAM chain is pretty smooth, though.

DaveSSS 

All current brands of 10 speed chains are constructed with the SAME basic design. That design has been around for over 25 years. All current models are also the same 5.9mm width. Slightly wider widths have been abandoned. From an outer width standpoint, you can pick any one you want. The only other major design change all these years has been the switch from protruding pin chains to flush-pin chains. Shimano started flush-pins with 9 speed and Campy started their flush-pin design in 2000 with 10 speed.

The rollers all rotate around a split, hollow "shaft" formed into the inner sideplates. The hole in this shaft is the bushing for the pins.

Do a search for some of my posts on measuring chain wear. Most people do it incorrectly with a Park chain checker, that exaggerates the wear. A precision scale is the proper tool for measuring elongation.

FYI, Campy chains usually outlast any other brand and will show very little elongation over their full life, if properly lubricated. Campy chains eventually need to be tossed due to roller wear and excessive side plate clearance, not elongation. You need calipers for measuring roller wear.

phee

I managed to catch an old post of yours which had the measurement for a Campy chain. Do you or any one else know what the measurement would be for the other chains? I have a Sram 1070 which seems to have quite a bit of sideplay, but measures within specs. I can see where it hops a little when it comes into contact with the cassette on certain rollers and rolls smoothly on most others. Have about 1000 miles on this drivetrain setup and I'm wondering if it is time to retire this chain already. Thought I would get a little more life out of it though. Thanks in advance.

-David

jens5

Odd. I kept breaking the noisy Shimano chains. I now have run several SRAM chains and my drive train is not only dead quiet, but I've never broken one.

operator

Chains break beecause

a) You suck at installing them
b) Extremely worn

I'm going to go with a.

DaveSSS 

Phee...

With regard to check the wear on any chain. Elongation measurement is the same for any brand. The common recommendation is to not let that exceed .5%. I'm sure that's an arbitrary number selected by someone, but who knows where it came from. Since a well lubed Campy chain elongates little that measurement is worthless.

As for roller wear, you have to measure the chain when new, or measure some of the scrap links that were cut from a new chain. Campy chains only measure about .200 inch when new, while Shimano and KMC measure about .210. I'll trash a chain when that initial reading increases by .035-.040, but there again, it's an arbitrary number. What you never want to do is use a single chain for than long. With a Campy chain that took me 6,000 miles and it also wore out one of the cogs (the 19T in my case). I alternate the use of several chains to avoid skip. I rotate them when they are no more than half worn. If I put I third chain on and get chain skip, I goofed.

Psimet2001 

Agreed.