My last chain for my Trek 1.1 road bike cost $28. Even though lubricated and cleaned it needs to be replaced after 3000 (?) miles. Walmart sells a Bell chain for $5.00. Does it really make a difference to buy a better chain? I suspect the answer will be "yes". Just wondering how much of a difference. I know that my $28 chain is not the top end of the market. My Shimano CN-HG 7-1 must be made of better steel and has worked (and is still working) fine. My Park chain wear tool shows it at .50 indicating it is time to think about a replacement. One reason I am concerned is that I have restored a number of older bikes and installed the cheaper chains so I could at least get a little for my time when selling them.Perhaps I should have cleaned and lubricated my chain more often.

Chains do have differences between them. If there were no gear shifting involved then these differences would amount to a lesser degree of performance (what ever chain performance means) difference. But with shifting the chain design/side plate contours come into play as they help determine how the cog teeth grab and/or release the chain during the shifting. The chain's bushing/roller designs influences the side to side flexibility and general noise level as the chain goes through various chain line angles between the different front and rear combos possible. Side plate/pin design determines how readily the side plate will be pried off the pin from the twisting forces that power on shifting produces (and this is largely the factor that "chain strength" is referring to, not actual tension or shear strengths). Then there's the basic matching of chain width with the needed spec for the cog to cog spacing one's bike has. Also there is the quality control of the chain's straightness. One will see a wavering of straightness, as viewed along the stretch of chain between the front and rear cogs, with lower cost/quality chains then with better controlled production of the more costly chains. Generally the nicer chains have coatings/platings on their side plates that better resist wear (not that side plate wear is why chains stretch with use...) and resist corrosion longer, not to mention look nicer what with the shinny attraction that our eyes are drawn to.

So, yes, there are reasons that cheap chains don't work as well as more expensive chains. As bikes have gotten more complex the performance window has narrowed and the wear rate has gone up for many components. This is a fact that a rider just has to accept or be happy with their older and less sensitive/less featured bikes or yesterday. Just like the cost of driving an all wheel drive car with anti lock and traction controls means that all 4 tires will need to be replaced if just one is damaged. One can complain about the cost of replacement parts and get the cheapest ones they can find. But if they then discover that their bike won't shift as smoothly/quickly, quietly it's only their blame. The major manufactures design and produce their components to work the best they can within a narrow set of parameters. Subbing components out of these parameters isn't what the manufactures care about or design for. Andy.

Once you get over the $20-25 (discount) mark most of what you're paying for is lighter weight and finish, gold, nickel, etc. There are some exceptions of course but generally I find this is true. Everyone has their preferences but any of the big names such as Shimano, Campy, KMC, SRAM, Connex are all good chains in the $25 range . Much of how long your chain lasts though comes down to your weight, riding style, riding conditions and proper lubing of your chain. I doubt the $5 Bell chain is very good but the only way to know is to try it. Before tossing the chain you have measure it with a good 12" ruler. Some of the chain wear tools can be very pessimistic.

I highly doubt that the $5 Walmart chain is narrow enough for modern road bike drivetrains. It's also probably made of very cheap steel with no corrosion resistance properties whatsoever.

*edit* my last KMC 10-sp chain lasted over 6K miles. I run KMC chains on both my bikes and will likely use them for the foreseeable future.

Beach cruiser drive trains are not that fussy.. now the market sells race 11 speed cassettes ,
the expectations from a chain increase with that.

Chain care, wear and skipping by Jobst Brandt The chain wear tool is only good as an indicator as when to use a ruler to measure chain wear.
I buy the cheapest chains for my 7 and 8 speed drive trains.

You'll spring for a Park chain wear indicator tool, but cheap out on, $5 Walmart, chains? Best price/performance seems to me to be KMC.

The most important chain life factor is lubrication. The most effective available lubricant I know of is "Chain-L" (Home Page Chain-L High Mileage Bicycle Chain Lubricant). It works simply because it is thick enough to 'stay put', excludes dirt and -- most importantly -- keeps the moving parts , well -- apart.

True Believers and suppliers make this matter more complicated than it has to be; chains need thick, sticky oil. Period!

Joe

Last I looked the Wmart chain was only good up to 8s. Beyond that, the more expensive chain will be less prone to corrosion (this I know from experience) and will shift better. Index shifting depends on the lateral flexibility of the chain and the shape of the outer link - the Bell branded stuff just isn't there.

If you want to save money, cleaning and lubricating are the way to go.

I do a lot of off-road and gravel riding in Florida so every ride results in the drivetrain being covered with either silty, dusty sand or mud (wet silt) which is just hell on parts. After my last $30 chain I've become a bit of a fanatic and am testing this drill: Every ride I take a brush to the chain and cogs to knock off the worst of it. Every few hundred miles it comes off and goes into a cheap ultrasonic cleaner filled with a 5:1 mix of mineral spirits and chainsaw oil. While it's in there I floss the cassette with a mop strand. The chain comes out perfectly clean and with oil driven deep into the bearing parts. Then it gets thoroughly wiped down so no oil is on the outside to attract dirt. I'll report how far I get with this.

The smartest bike mechanic I know says the best chain lube is whatever you'll actually use. Myself, I know I've lost more chains to rust and neglect than actually riding the life out of them.

Is there a difference? Yes of course there is. Is there enough difference to warrant the price? Not really.

While there are differences in materials and mechanical quality, most of the price difference is for a bit of weight savings, and nicer finish. The best chains will generally have longer chain life than tbe cheapest, but the spectrum is narrow, probably well less than two to one best to worst, which can't justify a price spectrum as wide as it is.

IMO based on experience, once you get close to the mid level of any major chain line, the wear life will have maxed out. So bang for buck, pass on the cheapest, but don't pay the top line premium

If you buy on E-Bay, or overseas, mail-order, you can often get super deals on chains. The HG-73 (9s) is usually around $10 each.

I've used Bell chains in the past. Then when I built my cargo bike, my chain broke twice in the first 2 days of riding, and that was the last I used those. Perhaps it was a fluke, or just a bad chain.

My last order of HG73 chains, a half dozen IG-51 chains were substituted, and didn't notice it until it was too late to return They look like nice chains, but unfortunately most of my bikes are 9s or better. I'll use them, but over a few years.

As far as cost...
Say you have a $10 and a $20 chain. If more expensive chain lasts twice as long, then it will be worth it. If you only have a 10%gain in lifespan, then the cheap chain might be the better bargain.

The Park chain wear tool was only $10. After reading all the above I am convinced that I will replace my Trek chain with another around the same price($27). As for the older vintage 10 speeds I guess I will keep using the Bell chains for those unless I get a comparable deal on Ebay or somewhere else.
Usually when I restore one of those older bikes I am trying to keep my costs way down so I can at least earn a bit for all my time and labor.

I understand and appreciate using a $5 chain on a low budget fix 'n flip bike. My comment was more toward why would you do that for your own, personal good bike. Seems you've hit the right balance. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

Meh. While this is eminently reasonable in a clean working environment, it is not so obvious in a drive train exposed to the elements.

Based on my experience using both thick, tacky oil lubes and wax-based lubes applied through a light solvent carrier; there is definitely something to be said for a lubricant which not only sets up 'drier' -- hence less prone to attracting dirt and building up dirt+oil sludge around the drive train -- but also goes on as a solvent/water displacer.

More precisely, since I have been using T-9, I have seen a substantial increase in chain wear-life over other lubes which I have used in the past. Admittedly, I end up lubricating my chain more often than I would have done using some other lubes, but that is in good part counter-balanced by the radical reduction in dirty, oily drive train clean-up. And given the way that T-9 goes on, with its solvent carrier, it seems to do a better job of flushing dirt and wear-particles from the chain's innards.

So, different strokes for different folks, and everything -- but to be quite so emphatic as you were in your post, particularly on such a perennially contentious issue, is a little much.