First I ride a recumbent. It takes about 2 to 2.5 regular chains to make one chain for my bike. I ride on average 1,500 to 3,000 miles a year. I run a triple in the front and a 9 speed in the rear. I have only had to replace the chain once every 3,000 miles. How is it I can get away with doing that and yet I hear of people who have to replace their chain once every 700 miles?

There are lots of factors that contribute to chain wear -- do you ride in better weather, or are your chainrings in good shape?

I doubt you are riding your bent through the mud.

I ride a LWB recumbent and have had the same experience. I ride 2500-2800 miles a year strictly on paved trails and I clean/lube the chain once a week. I replace the chains (2) every winter, even though the chain checker doesn't yet show sufficient stretch. Good chains (SRAM PC 990) and good drivetrain care are only part of the reason. The fact that you can't stand up on the pedals has a lot to do with it too. bk

Each link of a really long chain spends less time per mile in contact with chainrings and rear cogs, compared to a shorter chain. That may be part of the explanation.

Are there really a lot of people that change chains at 700 miles? That is pretty OCD. I think under normal conditions, with fairly modest maintenance, a chain can pretty reliably get several times that much mileage.

jim

Every 700 is WAY excessive, seems to me. I spread my riding randomly over four bikes, so it's hard to estimate mileage, but I'm sure I get at least 2000 miles on a chain, and probably much more. Even when I did mostly mountain bikes, with a lot of mud and dust, they went that far. If it ain't broke....