Please Mansplain to me about chains
 

My recent Fuji S12S buy has the original gold chain and cassette. I hear people say that new chains shift better. How? Are the links shaped differently? How is an SRAM different from a Shimano or Wipperman?

I don't think the chain will make a noticeable difference in shifting quality. There have been minor tweaks over the years to chain design, but its remained relatively the same for ~100 years.

You'd probably notice more of a difference with a fully modern drivetrain where the cassette and chainrings have shift "ramps" designed to pick up the chain and ease gear transitions. Most older freewheels and cranksets don't have these features.

Chains are chains as far as I am concerned. I have cheap SRAM chains on all my bikes but have used other brands with no complaints. Wipperman tends to be a higher end offering, from what I've seen.

Yeah, the old square cut gears are pretty crunchy. Newer cassettes are really nice, even for friction use.

There's definitely been an improvement in chains. One obvious is the side plates insides having a chamfer. Smooths out shifting and quieter.

Since this is C&V and for some older bikes, I like to keep the original period type but that's not too easy and can get pricey. Wish there was a maker who would replicate some of the popular type of the days. I've also experienced quality chains but with inferior master links. On some bikes, I don't use a master link.

No Comment! :mad: Mansplain sounds like something a gay Ricky Ricardo would say

Please see the "now i know" thread for reference. :)

+1
another blow against sexism. Good on ya BG.

Them new chintzy chains are for wusses..... plates are so thin so they wear out and stretch quicker, and Dang, you don't even get to use your chain breaking tool on them......... give me a nickel finish Sedisport any day!

Geez, Mansplain.

OK, steel is made from ore that is mined from deep within the earth...

Well, little lady, let's just say that I know more than you'll ever care to know about chains, and maybe you shouldn't worry your pretty little head about it, and go make me a sammich?

:)

"Looocy, joo got some 'splainin to do!"

The Wiki on this is actually pretty good - Bicycle chain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My own experiences with modern chains:

- Shimano HG chains tend to be over-priced, and the joining method (break-off pins) leaves a lot to be desired.

- Have not used Whipperman chains personally.

- SRAM chains are kinda clunky from a design standpoint, but they work and tend to be reliable. The master link is a nice touch.

- KMC's new X-series profiled chains are quite good with ramped cassettes or freewheels. They also have master links, so chain maintenance is a lot easier than in the past.

I use the SRAM because of the master link. I agree on the Shimano pins.

Amazingly, modern chains are narrower on the outside, but effectively wider on the inside, which widens the "usable range" of friction shift lever position for each gear selection.

As well, the beveling and bulging of the outer sideplates means newer chains are more aggressive at engaging the cog's teeth, which makes for the ability to transmit more power even during a shift.

Modern chain's inner spaces are thus shaped to "funnel" the tips of sprocket teeth into engagement, while a modern, narrower chain is also less prone to rubbing against the next-larger cog than it is running on.

These newer chain's greater flexibility reduces lubrication requirements while also allowing the chain to better engage two cogs at once during shifts.

The newer chains generally seem to last many thousands of miles with scant lubrication, are much lighter, and are strong enough for hard-core mountain biking using even a 22t chainring.

With C&V bikes, I am often trying to install the narrowest chain that I can use on a given bike's crankset, and usually 9s chain works fine.
I prefer 9s chain on all Varsity/Supersport steel cranksets, and even on most cottered cranksets.
But older Stronglight alloy cranksets (and SR clones of such) may need tooth reworking (bending/beveling) to even use 7-8s chain reliably without "skating" after a downshift.

9s chain seems to give the best shifting performance on all Suntour and Uniglide freewheels, fwiw.

I think that metallurgy/processing advancements have been the key to these narrower chain's ability to remain durable and wear-resistant despite much less metal on board.

Modern chain has transformed friction shifting and the vintage-bike riding experience for me, and has made all of the mechanical work (setup, adjustments, cleaning/lubing) a bit easier as well.
During a recent gearing upgrade to my 1991 Torelli, I replaced the 7s Regina Synchro-spaced freewheel with a newer, larger, SIS-spaced Sunrace 7s freewheel.
But only after installing narrower 9s chain could I overcome the incompatibility between the Synchro-7 cog spacing and the Sunrace/Shimano-7 cog spacing. Wow.

Any reason why man or woman would have particular difficulty understanding these here observations?


Edit: The 9s SRAM Power Links and inexpensive KMC 9s Missing Links seem to both do a good job of connecting Shimano 9s chain.
The SRAM 10s Power Link fits too tightly on 10s Shimano chain as I found out the hard way.
KMC makes two widths of Missing Link for 8s chain. The narrower "Missing Link II" model is too narrow for Shimano 8s chain.

Maybe they just are saying you need a new chain because yous is stretched worn out?

ancient yes, worn no. It appears from the above post that old flat plate chains are just not the same as the new.