Originally Posted by cyccommute (Post 22830222)

The roller isn’t wearing. The pin wears and allows the roller to follow something of an elliptical path as it goes over the cog and chainwheel. New chains follow a circular path so they engage the pitch of the cog and chainwheel properly so they don’t wear the edges of the teeth like a chain where the rollers can shift.

The question I have for you is how do your propose to measure roller wear if that is what you think is causing the problem? I can think of no way to measure roller wear separately from pin wear. It is possible, and even quite common, to measure secondary effects to measure a primary phenomena. In chemistry, for example, we often react two chemicals together and then further react the products of that reaction to see what the concentration of the unknown of the first two chemicals are. Pin wear and roller wear are related. Measuring pin wear also measures the effect of the rollers on the cogs.

Frankly, if you are worried about cog wear, you should probably be using one of these. I have one but find them to be mostly useless.

Originally Posted by Kontact (Post 22830352)

Why would the rollers not wear??? Their surfaces bear the same loads as the rest of the chain?

Originally Posted by cyccommute (Post 22830368)

Have you ever observed any kind of growing on a roller? Since the roller is wider than the chainwheel or cog they are rolling over, it should be readily visible. Sheldon Brown has two pictures of extreme chain wear that are illustrative of how chains wear. You can see several different wear patterns on the pin and on the plates. I’m not sure what to call the bit of the plate that stands up away from the body but you can see that is is worn to match the wear in the middle of the pin. The roller may wear it a little also but the pin is seeing the highest concentration of the pressure of riding and the most wear. The whole chain becomes worn and the rollers fit sloppily inside the chain itself.


https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...4bacaaf9bc.gif
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...4027a9b2d3.gif




That’s just a restatement of what I asked you. How would you measure them separately? You are the one who brought up the issue so it is up to you to resolve it. The rest of us use the tools we have a hand…either ruler or a chain checker.

Originally Posted by Kontact (Post 22830158)

Some people put so little energy through their drivetrains that discussions about chain wear, lubricants, etc seemingly don't apply to them. Congrats on your long chain life - you really must not be hammering. You're in the same class of people that go years on the same disc brake pads and object when anyone says they wear quickly - there's always someone like that on a bike forum.

Originally Posted by Koyote (Post 22830080)

When in doubt, throw it out.

Originally Posted by Kontact (Post 22830385)

Never said anything about needing to measure them separately. But if the rollers do wear, as you concede, you ought to measure both.

Originally Posted by cyccommute (Post 22830826)

And around and around we go. There isn’t a way to measure pin and roller wear separately.

Captain Obvious has just sailed into view!.

Rule or chain checker will work. I don’t object to rules as long as someone isn’t trying to convince me that estimating the measurement is “more accurate”. Personally, a chain checker is quicker and easier and just as good. I’ll go with a chain checker every time.

Originally Posted by shelbyfv (Post 22831046)

Would anyone like to speculate as to why 11speed and up should be replaced at .5 (or whatever fractional corresponds) vs the older .75?

Originally Posted by shelbyfv (Post 22831046)

Would anyone like to speculate as to why 11speed and up should be replaced at .5 (or whatever fractional corresponds) vs the older .75?

Originally Posted by nomadmax (Post 22830075)

Just what I thought, crickets.

Originally Posted by Lombard (Post 22831348)

Because Big Chain wants you to replace your chain more often. 😆

Originally Posted by Kontact (Post 22830845)

WTF? You measure just pin wear with a ruler. You measure pin and roller wear together with a chain checker. How is this suddenly new information for you? It's all I've been talking about the whole damn thread.

Captain Obvious? More like Captain Oblivious. Geez.

Originally Posted by davidad (Post 22831415)

Your problem is the inability to see the truth.

Originally Posted by GhostRider62 (Post 22830979)

Got a new bike in early December but only 1500 miles on it due to Covid recovery. Took off the chain and cleaned it yesterday. Hung it on a nail alongside a new and degreased chain. Zero wear. Both were exactly the same length. I guess I have no wattage or the Silca wax is doing its job. At $75 per chain, $400 per cassette, and $881 for rings, I'm not guessing on chain wear. It ain't take no rocket surgeryist to remove no doubt. 0.4% and they are in the bin. I have cassettes with over 30,000 miles that are fine…

Originally Posted by easyupbug (Post 22830481)

I have a Mitutoyo dial caliper on my bench so use Campagnolo's hard rule that you toss anything over 132.60mm which, though I have not checked, might be just under 0.5%. It is quick and easy and chains are relatively cheap so I follow their advise to "immediately" replace if even one measurement is over 132.60mm.

Originally Posted by shelbyfv (Post 22831046)

Would anyone like to speculate as to why 11speed and up should be replaced at .5 (or whatever fractional corresponds) vs the older .75?

Originally Posted by Racing Dan (Post 22831593)

Good question. Who came up with these values and why. Industry standard is 1% and there is no logical reason it why it’s either 0.5% or 0.75% depending on 10s vs 11s. In shimano cassettes the actual cogs are identical in 10s vs 11s. Only spacing and # of cogs differ slightly. Not to mention it’s unclear if its 0.5% actual elongation or roller wear should be included. Park used to have a tool that included roller wear, now they have one that doesn't, but the recommended values stay the same even if different methods give very different results. Makes no sense what so ever.

Originally Posted by Racing Dan (Post 22831580)

Really?

Measuring my own (non campy) chains from new, in the way recommended by campy, they measure right about 132.25mm according to my digital calliper. 132.6mm is then 0.26% "wear" before binning it, and the campy method even includes roller wear (enlargement of the hole in the roller, - the outer diameter stays roughly the same), that in my experience is more pronounced than actual chain elongation. Seems overly conservative to me and I've certainly gone much further with no issues. 133+ mm before I even consider replacing the chain.

Originally Posted by Kontact (Post 22830845)

WTF? You measure just pin wear with a ruler. You measure pin and roller wear together with a chain checker. How is this suddenly new information for you? It's all I've been talking about the whole damn thread.

Captain Obvious? More like Captain Oblivious. Geez.

Originally Posted by cyccommute (Post 22831705)

Pin wear and any roller wear (which is vanishingly small) are combined in any measurement you make on a chain. I will not say that chain checkers are more accurate or measure roller wear over the rule method. The amount of wear measured with both methods is the same and either method can be used. I find the chain checker to be quicker to use with the same result. If you think differently it is up to you to demonstrate how the measurements can be disconnected.

Again, my main objection to the rule method is the use of a 12” rule and the estimation of the 1/16” wear while simultaneously claiming that the rule method is “more accurate”. Get a 13” rule and I’d have zero problems with the method. I still don’t think it is more accurate than a chain checker.

Originally Posted by Kontact (Post 22831728)

You can disassemble the chain and remove all the rollers and it will be the same length when you put it back together without them.

Originally Posted by Kontact (Post 22831728)

The rollers have zero influence on how elongated the chain gets from pin and link wear and absolutely will not show up if you measure the chain with a ruler. Pin to pin distance is entirely a measure of how the inner links and pins contact each other. Having a ring around the two won't change that.

You can disassemble the chain and remove all the rollers and it will be the same length when you put it back together without them.