Are 10 speed chains likely to break?

Are 10 speed chains likely to break?

Post by Ivar Hesselage » Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:02:45


Good luck exeeded bad luck, when my chain broke today: No damage to my  
brand new (too expensive) winter jacket, when I fell. And I could make use  
of my road aid insurance and was picked up within 20 minutes after I phone  
for help, just as I started to freeze.  So all in all I felt like winning  
in lotto.

But broken chains are not on my list of likely cycling incidents.  I could  
cary a chain tool and a connecting link, but never bothered, because in my  
long cycling life with 9000 km a year, I have experienced a broken chain  
only once before. Which was the result of my ignorance six years ago of  
the fact, that pins in a Shimano chain cannot be reused (any more). I  
wount make that mistake again.

I have four bikes: three of them with 9 speed and one with 10 speed - and  
the chain that broke today was the 10 speed, with (only) 1755 km on it -  
and it was still shifting perfectly.   When I bought the bike two years  
ago, the shop keeper told me, that 10 speed chains should be renewed every  
1000 km.  But I keep a clean chain and check it with a chain wear  
indicator, and the last chain lasted 2665 km.  Anyway a chain should not  
break from normal wear, should it?

Being an old cyclist I tend to prefer the way things were done before, and  
instinctly I assume that nine speed is better than ten speed.
However the ten speed system has been working perfectly for me for two  
years, and I was beginning to consider, that maybe 10 speed wasn't that  
bad after all and maybe my next bike should also be a ten speed.

The chain broke today while I was accelerating after a stop, and on top of  
my natural 90 standing kg I was pulling hard, so there was max load on the  
chain.  But again, a chain should not break through normal use, should it?

Both sideplates in the same link were broken through the pin hole but in  
opposite ends: One side broke first causing the other to break,  
evidently.  But that doesn't look like it was the pin slipping out of the  
hole. "The sideplates could not withstand the load" is the conclusion of  
my investigation.

As I am writing I am looking at two new Shimano chains from my stock.  A  
CN-6600 like the one that broke and  a CN-HG93 which I use on my 9 speed  
bikes.  And clearly the side plates are thinner on the CN-6600.  Are they  
too thin? Are they so thin, that you must renew the chain after 1000 km to  
prevent chain breaking?

I have bought an extra Ultegra 9 speed crankset and a buttom bracket to be  
sure to have spares, when you can only get 10's. That is because of my  
conservative instinct, I'll admit. But is my lucky fall today an  
indication that 10 speed chains are not as strong as they should be?  On a  
scale from 1 to 10, how good was my conservative instinct to stick with  
the 9 speed as long as possible?. ;-)

Ivar of Denmark

 
 
 

Are 10 speed chains likely to break?

Post by John Forrest Tomlinso » Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:13:58

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 02:02:45 +0100, "Ivar Hesselager"

Quote:

>Being an old cyclist I tend to prefer the way things were done before,

I broke a six-speed chanin in 1984.

JFT

 
 
 

Are 10 speed chains likely to break?

Post by A Muz » Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:15:05

Quote:

> Good luck exeeded bad luck, when my chain broke today: No damage to my
> brand new (too expensive) winter jacket, when I fell. And I could make
> use of my road aid insurance and was picked up within 20 minutes after I
> phone for help, just as I started to freeze.  So all in all I felt like
> winning in lotto.

> But broken chains are not on my list of likely cycling incidents.  I
> could cary a chain tool and a connecting link, but never bothered,
> because in my long cycling life with 9000 km a year, I have experienced
> a broken chain only once before. Which was the result of my ignorance
> six years ago of the fact, that pins in a Shimano chain cannot be reused
> (any more). I wount make that mistake again.

> I have four bikes: three of them with 9 speed and one with 10 speed -
> and the chain that broke today was the 10 speed, with (only) 1755 km on
> it - and it was still shifting perfectly.   When I bought the bike two
> years ago, the shop keeper told me, that 10 speed chains should be
> renewed every 1000 km.  But I keep a clean chain and check it with a
> chain wear indicator, and the last chain lasted 2665 km.  Anyway a chain
> should not break from normal wear, should it?

> Being an old cyclist I tend to prefer the way things were done before,
> and instinctly I assume that nine speed is better than ten speed.
> However the ten speed system has been working perfectly for me for two
> years, and I was beginning to consider, that maybe 10 speed wasn't that
> bad after all and maybe my next bike should also be a ten speed.

> The chain broke today while I was accelerating after a stop, and on top
> of my natural 90 standing kg I was pulling hard, so there was max load
> on the chain.  But again, a chain should not break through normal use,
> should it?

> Both sideplates in the same link were broken through the pin hole but in
> opposite ends: One side broke first causing the other to break,
> evidently.  But that doesn't look like it was the pin slipping out of
> the hole. "The sideplates could not withstand the load" is the
> conclusion of my investigation.

> As I am writing I am looking at two new Shimano chains from my stock.  A
> CN-6600 like the one that broke and  a CN-HG93 which I use on my 9 speed
> bikes.  And clearly the side plates are thinner on the CN-6600.  Are
> they too thin? Are they so thin, that you must renew the chain after
> 1000 km to prevent chain breaking?

> I have bought an extra Ultegra 9 speed crankset and a buttom bracket to
> be sure to have spares, when you can only get 10's. That is because of
> my conservative instinct, I'll admit. But is my lucky fall today an
> indication that 10 speed chains are not as strong as they should be?  On
> a scale from 1 to 10, how good was my conservative instinct to stick
> with the 9 speed as long as possible?. ;-)

Well, overall smaller chain wears faster than wider chain, all else
being equal and all modern chain wears faster than roller chain.

But wear is not failure. What chain is it? A few chains are still
rivetted (with cumbersome procedures). It's possible a factory-set rivet
could have been set improperly. On a normal snap link chain, there's no
particular reason for such a failure (barring kinks and twists from
errant shifts etc).

This is not normal and certainly not expected. We take chain failure
seriously as it can mean a rider injury. It's good you escaped unscathed.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 
 
 

Are 10 speed chains likely to break?

Post by _ » Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:26:42

Quote:

> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 02:02:45 +0100, "Ivar Hesselager"

>>Being an old cyclist I tend to prefer the way things were done before,

> I broke a six-speed chanin in 1984.

I had trouble with the rollers on shimano ultra-glide (IIRC) chains in the
70's.  They cracked/broke; chain would crunch and skip and derail
catastrophically.  As I was on a long trip through sparsley populated areas
I would up just removing the affected links (this happaned several times).
At the end I still could use the lowest gear, but only barely.

When I took the chain off to have a good look after cleaning later, roughly
half of them were cracked.  The replacement chain also developed cracked
rollers.  I switched to a different type of chain (sedisport, I think,
though that might have been a later brand) and had no further trouble.

 
 
 

Are 10 speed chains likely to break?

Post by jim bea » Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:58:24

<snip novella>

Quote:

> Both sideplates in the same link were broken through the pin hole but in
> opposite ends: One side broke first causing the other to break,
> evidently.  But that doesn't look like it was the pin slipping out of
> the hole. "The sideplates could not withstand the load" is the
> conclusion of my investigation.

then you were looking at misinformation.  this bicycle chain has tensile
strength up around 1000kgf, static.  that is /way/ more than you can
possibly exert.  if it broke, it's because it was not assembled
correctly, not because it's inherently weak.  if it was not assembled
right, no offense, maybe you need to wear classes to see to do it.  or
have someone else do it.

in answer to your other concern, yes, narrow chain wears slightly faster
than wide chain, but not enough to make a significant difference.
however, 10-s chains _cost_ more, so if you're looking for a /real/
reason to retro-grouch, let that be it, not fud.

 
 
 

Are 10 speed chains likely to break?

Post by jim bea » Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:10:20

Quote:


>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 02:02:45 +0100, "Ivar Hesselager"

>>> Being an old cyclist I tend to prefer the way things were done before,
>> I broke a six-speed chanin in 1984.

> I had trouble with the rollers on shimano ultra-glide (IIRC) chains in the
> 70's.  They cracked/broke; chain would crunch and skip and derail
> catastrophically.  As I was on a long trip through sparsley populated areas
> I would up just removing the affected links (this happaned several times).
> At the end I still could use the lowest gear, but only barely.

> When I took the chain off to have a good look after cleaning later, roughly
> half of them were cracked.  The replacement chain also developed cracked
> rollers.

a lot of cheap chain has rollers made of bent flats, not pieces of tube.
  where the two ends meet is clearly visible.

Quote:
>  I switched to a different type of chain (sedisport, I think,
> though that might have been a later brand) and had no further trouble.

quality - your best option.  sedisport was excellent - it re-wrote the
book on bicycle chain.
 
 
 

Are 10 speed chains likely to break?

Post by David L. Johnso » Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:52:31

Quote:

> and the chain that broke today was the 10 speed, with (only) 1755 km on
> it - and it was still shifting perfectly.   When I bought the bike two
> years ago, the shop keeper told me, that 10 speed chains should be
> renewed every 1000 km.  But I keep a clean chain and check it with a
> chain wear indicator, and the last chain lasted 2665 km.  Anyway a chain
> should not break from normal wear, should it?

Well, several things.  10s chains are thinner than 9s, which are thinner
than 8s, but most of that thinning is in the side plates, and the pins.
  Yes, there is probably slightly less contact area with the rollers,
but not that much less.  1000km should be way too soon to replace a
chain that has been properly cared for.  Even the 2600km is short of
what I would consider reasonable.  I usually have chains last over 2,000
miles, and usually more like 3,000, that is 3,000-4,500km.

Quote:

> Being an old cyclist I tend to prefer the way things were done before,
> and instinctly I assume that nine speed is better than ten speed.

so, you bought 10s?

Quote:
> The chain broke today while I was accelerating after a stop, and on top
> of my natural 90 standing kg I was pulling hard, so there was max load
> on the chain.  But again, a chain should not break through normal use,
> should it?

Should not, no, but it's a mechanical part with lots and lots of moving
parts, subject to all sorts of wear and stress.  Are you careful never
to shift under load?  Do you never use the big-big combination, which
stresses the chain because of the poor chainline?

Quote:

> Both sideplates in the same link were broken through the pin hole but in
> opposite ends: One side broke first causing the other to break,
> evidently.  But that doesn't look like it was the pin slipping out of
> the hole. "The sideplates could not withstand the load" is the
> conclusion of my investigation.

I would imagine that one sideplate breaking, or being bent by a failed
pin, would cause secondary damage to the other.  It is nontrivial to
figure out what went wrong first.

Shit happens.  Worry more if it happens again.

--

David L. Johnson

When you are up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to remember that
your initial objective was to drain the swamp.
                -- LBJ

 
 
 

Are 10 speed chains likely to break?

Post by Mike Jacoubowsk » Tue, 22 Jan 2008 13:15:10

Quote:
> As I am writing I am looking at two new Shimano chains from my stock.  A
> CN-6600 like the one that broke and  a CN-HG93 which I use on my 9 speed
> bikes.  And clearly the side plates are thinner on the CN-6600.  Are they
> too thin? Are they so thin, that you must renew the chain after 1000 km to
> prevent chain breaking?

As we sell very large numbers of road bikes, we have substantial experience
with 10-speed chains (as well as those that came before and are still
present on moderately-priced bikes). What we've found is-

#1: Despite what we'd initially been told, 10-speed chains don't seem to
wear any faster, in the traditional sense (measuring elongation), than
9-speed versions. However- shifting quality deteriorates significantly, well
before you get to the point that the chain measures the sort of elongation
where you'd normally replace it. But 1000km? No way. You *could* kill a
chain that quickly by riding it in mucky conditions, but generally you're
going to get closer to 3K miles with normal use, which is about the same
that you'd get for a 9-speed chain. This assumes 175lb/80kilo rider, mix of
hills & flats, and reasonable riding conditions.

#2: I have yet to see a 10-speed Shimano chain fail in service due to
"wear."

#3: 10-speed chains are FAR more difficult to properly connect. I can
correctly insert the pins in a Shimano 9-speed chain blindfolded (haven't
actually done that, but pretty certain I could). The 10-speed pins, however,
are extremely easy to push through too far, and once you've done that, you
may become too tentative and not push it through far enough. Either way,
you've got a chain that WILL fail sometime down the road. A large number of
factory-installed chains, in fact, are NOT properly installed. This is a big
enough issue that Trek no longer uses standard Shimano connecting pins on
10-speed drivetrains, choosing instead to use a KMC quick-connect link
(which requires no tools and snaps into place).

Could you post a photo of the failed link? I'd like to see if it's the
connecting pin or not. If it's a random (not connecting) link that failed,
that's highly unusual, especially for a road bike. For mountain bikes,
shifting under adverse conditions can do very *** things to a chain, but
road bikes generally don't see that sort of abuse.

Thanks-

--Mike--     Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


Quote:
> Good luck exeeded bad luck, when my chain broke today: No damage to my
> brand new (too expensive) winter jacket, when I fell. And I could make use
> of my road aid insurance and was picked up within 20 minutes after I phone
> for help, just as I started to freeze.  So all in all I felt like winning
> in lotto.

> But broken chains are not on my list of likely cycling incidents.  I could
> cary a chain tool and a connecting link, but never bothered, because in my
> long cycling life with 9000 km a year, I have experienced a broken chain
> only once before. Which was the result of my ignorance six years ago of
> the fact, that pins in a Shimano chain cannot be reused (any more). I
> wount make that mistake again.

> I have four bikes: three of them with 9 speed and one with 10 speed - and
> the chain that broke today was the 10 speed, with (only) 1755 km on it -
> and it was still shifting perfectly.   When I bought the bike two years
> ago, the shop keeper told me, that 10 speed chains should be renewed every
> 1000 km.  But I keep a clean chain and check it with a chain wear
> indicator, and the last chain lasted 2665 km.  Anyway a chain should not
> break from normal wear, should it?

> Being an old cyclist I tend to prefer the way things were done before, and
> instinctly I assume that nine speed is better than ten speed.
> However the ten speed system has been working perfectly for me for two
> years, and I was beginning to consider, that maybe 10 speed wasn't that
> bad after all and maybe my next bike should also be a ten speed.

> The chain broke today while I was accelerating after a stop, and on top of
> my natural 90 standing kg I was pulling hard, so there was max load on the
> chain.  But again, a chain should not break through normal use, should it?

> Both sideplates in the same link were broken through the pin hole but in
> opposite ends: One side broke first causing the other to break,
> evidently.  But that doesn't look like it was the pin slipping out of the
> hole. "The sideplates could not withstand the load" is the conclusion of
> my investigation.

> As I am writing I am looking at two new Shimano chains from my stock.  A
> CN-6600 like the one that broke and  a CN-HG93 which I use on my 9 speed
> bikes.  And clearly the side plates are thinner on the CN-6600.  Are they
> too thin? Are they so thin, that you must renew the chain after 1000 km to
> prevent chain breaking?

> I have bought an extra Ultegra 9 speed crankset and a buttom bracket to be
> sure to have spares, when you can only get 10's. That is because of my
> conservative instinct, I'll admit. But is my lucky fall today an
> indication that 10 speed chains are not as strong as they should be?  On a
> scale from 1 to 10, how good was my conservative instinct to stick with
> the 9 speed as long as possible?. ;-)

> Ivar of Denmark

 
 
 

Are 10 speed chains likely to break?

Post by John Forrest Tomlinso » Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:06:08

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 22:52:31 -0500, "David L. Johnson"

Quote:

>Are you careful never
>to shift under load?  Do you never use the big-big combination, which
>stresses the chain because of the poor chainline?

Come on - 10-speed was designed originally for racing, where shifting
under load and cross-chaining are common.

Quote:
>Shit happens.  Worry more if it happens again.

Well said.
 
 
 

Are 10 speed chains likely to break?

Post by cyclingthi.. » Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:58:50



Quote:
> Good luck exeeded bad luck, when my chain broke today: No damage to my
> brand new (too expensive) winter jacket, when I fell. And I could make use
> of my road aid insurance and was picked up within 20 minutes after I phone
> for help, just as I started to freeze.  So all in all I felt like winning
> in lotto.

> But broken chains are not on my list of likely cycling incidents.  I could
> cary a chain tool and a connecting link, but never bothered, because in my
> long cycling life with 9000 km a year, I have experienced a broken chain
> only once before. Which was the result of my ignorance six years ago of
> the fact, that pins in a Shimano chain cannot be reused (any more). I
> wount make that mistake again.

> I have four bikes: three of them with 9 speed and one with 10 speed - and
> the chain that broke today was the 10 speed, with (only) 1755 km on it -
> and it was still shifting perfectly.   When I bought the bike two years
> ago, the shop keeper told me, that 10 speed chains should be renewed every
> 1000 km.  But I keep a clean chain and check it with a chain wear
> indicator, and the last chain lasted 2665 km.  Anyway a chain should not
> break from normal wear, should it?

> Being an old cyclist I tend to prefer the way things were done before, and
> instinctly I assume that nine speed is better than ten speed.
> However the ten speed system has been working perfectly for me for two
> years, and I was beginning to consider, that maybe 10 speed wasn't that
> bad after all and maybe my next bike should also be a ten speed.

> The chain broke today while I was accelerating after a stop, and on top of
> my natural 90 standing kg I was pulling hard, so there was max load on the
> chain.  But again, a chain should not break through normal use, should it?

> Both sideplates in the same link were broken through the pin hole but in
> opposite ends: One side broke first causing the other to break,
> evidently.  But that doesn't look like it was the pin slipping out of the
> hole. "The sideplates could not withstand the load" is the conclusion of
> my investigation.

> As I am writing I am looking at two new Shimano chains from my stock.  A
> CN-6600 like the one that broke and  a CN-HG93 which I use on my 9 speed
> bikes.  And clearly the side plates are thinner on the CN-6600.  Are they
> too thin? Are they so thin, that you must renew the chain after 1000 km to
> prevent chain breaking?

> I have bought an extra Ultegra 9 speed crankset and a buttom bracket to be
> sure to have spares, when you can only get 10's. That is because of my
> conservative instinct, I'll admit. But is my lucky fall today an
> indication that 10 speed chains are not as strong as they should be?  On a
> scale from 1 to 10, how good was my conservative instinct to stick with
> the 9 speed as long as possible?. ;-)

> Ivar of Denmark

never seen a broken chain. it was most likely a problem with the
installation. also 1000 km is way to early to replace a chain. i have
had more than 5000 km on chain without a problem.
carlos
http://www.bikingthings.com
ride hard, get fit, be happy
 
 
 

Are 10 speed chains likely to break?

Post by M-gineerin » Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:29:15

Quote:

> But I keep a clean chain and check it with a
> chain wear indicator, and the last chain lasted 2665 km.

what do you use for cleaning? You don't want to use citrus based stuff
which can cause cracking of the chainplates. Use soap and water or
solvents instead
--
/Marten

info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl

 
 
 

Are 10 speed chains likely to break?

Post by Michael Johnso » Wed, 23 Jan 2008 01:26:34

Quote:


>> But I keep a clean chain and check it with a chain wear indicator, and
>> the last chain lasted 2665 km.

> what do you use for cleaning? You don't want to use citrus based stuff
> which can cause cracking of the chainplates. Use soap and water or
> solvents instead

I haven't ever heard that citrus-based solvents can do any damage to
chains, and haven't seen any evidence of it (that's all I use to clean
chains on my bikes). Can you point us to some studies that show this?

Thanks,
Mike Johnson

 
 
 

Are 10 speed chains likely to break?

Post by M-gineerin » Wed, 23 Jan 2008 02:52:35

Quote:



>>> But I keep a clean chain and check it with a chain wear indicator,
>>> and the last chain lasted 2665 km.

>> what do you use for cleaning? You don't want to use citrus based stuff
>> which can cause cracking of the chainplates. Use soap and water or
>> solvents instead

> I haven't ever heard that citrus-based solvents can do any damage to
> chains, and haven't seen any evidence of it (that's all I use to clean
> chains on my bikes). Can you point us to some studies that show this?

> Thanks,
> Mike Johnson

the term to look for is H2 embrittlement. Sram warns against cleaning
with acidic agents, and here is another one:
http://chain-guide.com/applications/1-5-1-bicycle-chain.html

--
/Marten

info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl

 
 
 

Are 10 speed chains likely to break?

Post by Michael Johnso » Wed, 23 Jan 2008 04:22:02

Quote:




>>>> But I keep a clean chain and check it with a chain wear indicator,
>>>> and the last chain lasted 2665 km.

>>> what do you use for cleaning? You don't want to use citrus based
>>> stuff which can cause cracking of the chainplates. Use soap and water
>>> or solvents instead

>> I haven't ever heard that citrus-based solvents can do any damage to
>> chains, and haven't seen any evidence of it (that's all I use to clean
>> chains on my bikes). Can you point us to some studies that show this?

>> Thanks,
>> Mike Johnson

> the term to look for is H2 embrittlement. Sram warns against cleaning
> with acidic agents, and here is another one:
> http://chain-guide.com/applications/1-5-1-bicycle-chain.html

That page cautions against using weak-acid rust removers, but doesn't
say anything about citrus-based cleansers. Is there any information
available comparing the pH of (for example) Pedro's Orange Peelz against
such things as the phosphatic acid rust remover mentioned on that page?

The SRAM chain service technical document
http://www.sram.com/_media/techdocs/Chain_PC1_08_02.pdf I was able to
find says:

"Clean dirty chains before oiling. Do not use any grease-dissolving or
acidic agents. Cleaning agent must be rinsed off after a few minutes
with water. Apply oil after chain is completely dried."

But, it doesn't say why. In the context of citrus-based agents, I'd be
more concerned about the grease-dissolving caution. I suspect that's
because they don't want you washing the lubrication out of the inside of
the chain. That's not likely to be a problem with chain cleaning devices
like the Park Cyclone, since the chain is not submerged in cleaning fluid.

I find it interesting in this context that Park markets a citrus-based
cleaning fluid specifically for chain cleaning (their Citrus ChainBrite
product). Generally, Park is pretty on the ball and I suspect that if
there were a real problem with using citrus cleaners on chains, they
wouldn't continue to sell one.

Mike Johnson

 
 
 

Are 10 speed chains likely to break?

Post by Ivar Hesselage » Wed, 23 Jan 2008 05:57:32


Quote:

>> But I keep a clean chain and check it with a chain wear indicator, and  
>> the last chain lasted 2665 km.

> what do you use for cleaning? You don't want to use citrus based stuff  
> which can cause cracking of the chainplates. Use soap and water or  
> solvents instead

I use Rex Cleaner Plus from Motorex of Switzerland.   "Components:  
ethanol, isopropanol mixture, i-/n- nonanes, d- limones
Dries without leaving any residue"  is what it says with incredibly small  
letters on the backside.
"d- limones" smells of citrus acid.  It is claimed to be biodegradable,  
which means something to me.

I can't be sure I didn't in some way damage the chain when jamming it on  
the front derailleur, but I think not. I can't be sure the placing of the  
Shimano conneting pin was 100 pct. precise, but I know I was extremely  
careful. So I am a bit interested in the theory that something has  
weakened the chainplates.  On the other hand, if citrus detergents weakens  
the chains we would be a crowd of people, with the broken chains in this  
newsgroup, wouldn't we?   And we arn't. Are we?   rec.bicycles.tec would  
be the one place in the world, to enought practical user experience to  
convey a problem like that.

--
Sendt med Operas banebrydende postklient:
http://www.opera.com/mail/