[HoldingOn]

I met a gent on my cycle home Friday, who mentioned he had three chains for his bike. I said I thought it odd to have a chain for different types of route (my first thought) He explained that he “rotates them once month and they last longer”
I suppressed my initial response “don’t they rotate as you cycle?” but that meant he moved on to another subject.
My question – what does he mean and does it help chains last longer? Does giving the chain a rest help prevent it stretching?

Topic

[HoldingOn]

I use KMC chains as well, so

I use KMC chains as well, so hopefully I have the same experience with the quick links.

Cost saving is a big factor in my cycling – it is certainly why I started. If the cheapest option is to use cheap chains and replace them every xkms, then that is what I will do. If spending £y cleaning the chain makes them last 2xkms and £y is less than the cost of a new chain – then it makes sense to clean it. If cleaning it costs more than a new chain and doesn’t double the longevity of the chain, then its not worth it.

Unfortunately, that calculation needs to factor in the cost of a new cassette and chainring – if they need to be replaced more often, through running a dirty chain.

Its useful to have all the different options & techniques – I can try each one and see what impact each has on costs.

[Cugel]

IanMSpencer wrote:

IanMSpencer wrote:

I think the theory is probably to do with “end of life”. A worn chain will not sit on a new cassette, and a worn cassette will skip on a new chain, but an old chain will sit on an old cassette. So by rotating chains you theoretically extend the time that cassette wear matches chain wear. I find that 3 chains to a cassette is a good ratio, and changing around the indicated lifespan as per spec. gives you a non-skip change. As I use the whole life of the chain, rotation doesn’t help. I’ve not noticed the 3rd, most mismatched, chain last a shorter time than the first, so the premise of matching wear to reduce wear doesn’t seem to offer significant gains. The trouble with rotating chains is the disconnecting and reconnecting. Unless you buy quick links specifically designed to be broken and reconnected (e.g. Wipperman), you should be replacing the quick link, so any wear savings are lost through replacing pins or quick links. Although most people do break and replace quick links like Shimano ones, you aren’t supposed to.

If chains are cleaned and lubricated obsessively through truly-clean to carefully-lubricated (with effective lubrication designed for the purpose) then discarded as soon as the 0.5% “stretch” is detected, cassettes and chainrings will last much longer than the 3:1 ratio often quoted. The price for doing so is your time & effort.

It’s a personal choice, mine being not just to avoid having to buy expensive new cassettes and chainrings but also to have an efficient and well-functioning transmission at all times. And to serve my minor OCD lust.  🙂

Running worn chains on worn cogs may avoid the skipping that can otherwise occur with new-old combinations but the efficiency is likely to drop and the overall wear rates of everything will accelerate. Many don’t seem to mind as they imagine they’re “saving money”. We have all been well-encouraged to apply only the accountant’s rule to all matters though, eh?

If only there was a better set of uses for worn chains.  Perhaps a fad for chain jewelry could be induced? This would be far less costly to the buyers than, say, a Campag groupset jewelbox.

[hawkinspeter]

IanMSpencer wrote:

IanMSpencer wrote:

I think the theory is probably to do with “end of life”. A worn chain will not sit on a new cassette, and a worn cassette will skip on a new chain, but an old chain will sit on an old cassette. So by rotating chains you theoretically extend the time that cassette wear matches chain wear. I find that 3 chains to a cassette is a good ratio, and changing around the indicated lifespan as per spec. gives you a non-skip change. As I use the whole life of the chain, rotation doesn’t help. I’ve not noticed the 3rd, most mismatched, chain last a shorter time than the first, so the premise of matching wear to reduce wear doesn’t seem to offer significant gains. The trouble with rotating chains is the disconnecting and reconnecting. Unless you buy quick links specifically designed to be broken and reconnected (e.g. Wipperman), you should be replacing the quick link, so any wear savings are lost through replacing pins or quick links. Although most people do break and replace quick links like Shimano ones, you aren’t supposed to.

When I was mucking around with wax treatments, I re-used KMC quick links and they seemed fine up to about 10 reuses.

[IanMSpencer]

I think the theory is
I think the theory is probably to do with “end of life”.

A worn chain will not sit on a new cassette, and a worn cassette will skip on a new chain, but an old chain will sit on an old cassette.

So by rotating chains you theoretically extend the time that cassette wear matches chain wear.

I find that 3 chains to a cassette is a good ratio, and changing around the indicated lifespan as per spec. gives you a non-skip change. As I use the whole life of the chain, rotation doesn’t help. I’ve not noticed the 3rd, most mismatched, chain last a shorter time than the first, so the premise of matching wear to reduce wear doesn’t seem to offer significant gains.

The trouble with rotating chains is the disconnecting and reconnecting. Unless you buy quick links specifically designed to be broken and reconnected (e.g. Wipperman), you should be replacing the quick link, so any wear savings are lost through replacing pins or quick links. Although most people do break and replace quick links like Shimano ones, you aren’t supposed to.

[hawkinspeter]

HoldingOn wrote:

Perhaps I wax the chain during the drier summer months and oil it when it starts to get wet again.

There does seem to be one area of agreement though – I’m definitely not cleaning my chain sufficiently!

Probably best to not mix the two methods – treat yourself to a different chain.

[HoldingOn]

Perhaps I wax the chain

Perhaps I wax the chain during the drier summer months and oil it when it starts to get wet again.

There does seem to be one area of agreement though – I’m definitely not cleaning my chain sufficiently!

[hawkinspeter]

marmotte27 wrote:

marmotte27 wrote:

”Wax instead of oil is recommended as it doesn’t turn into a grinding paste by sticking to the grit and dust.” The stuff that’s on the chain when new is far more akin to an oil than to a wax. The black gunk from worn metal appears on a new chain within a few dozen kilometres, I don’t think that that’s something to do with what you put on the chain yourself.

New chains come with oil on them. To get the benefits of wax, you have to remove as much of that oil as possible and ultrasonic cleaners are sometimes used for that puprose. Once the chain is as oil-free as possible is when you put the wax/wax-based lube on them (it’s not likely to stick to an oiled chain) and that should remain relatively clean. The main disadvantage of wax treatments is that they don’t last as long, especially in the wet.

[Anonymous]

“Wax instead of oil is
“Wax instead of oil is recommended as it doesn’t turn into a grinding paste by sticking to the grit and dust.”

The stuff that’s on the chain when new is far more akin to an oil than to a wax. The black gunk from worn metal appears on a new chain within a few dozen kilometres, I don’t think that that’s something to do with what you put on the chain yourself.

[Anonymous]

I’d it could make sense in a
It could make sense in a context where you’re not sure to find replacements for cassette and chainrings easily and dont want to lug them around. Otherwise not worth the bother.
Faffing around with deep-cleaning and -waxing not worth the bother either. Keep reasonably clean and oiled and replace when worn, done.

[bikes]

Taking them off makes
Taking them off makes maintenance easier: You can put the chain in a jar of spirits, shake it and leave it for some time and then clean it and transfer to a jar of oil. I put mesh in the bottom of the jar of spirits to let sediment collect below the chain. The oil can be thick as it will have a chance to seep into the all the parts, where it might not if just dripped on when the chain is on a bike.

I’ve been doing this with my 1x mountain bike that sees a lot of mud and grit. The idea is to just keep the same drivetrain and chains and just let them all wear out together, hopefully everything still working ok even with stretched chains and worn cassette teeth.

[bikes]

I guess the maths goes like
I guess the maths goes like this: You could either keep replacing your chain with a new one before each chain gets too worn (<1/8" stretch over 12 inches?) and keep that going until a new chain skips on your worn cassette (after 4 chain replacements?) at which point you put your old chain back on and run both the cassette and chain into the ground. Or you buy 3 chains at once and rotate them and let the cassette get really, really worn. The idea being that a very stretched chain won't skip on a very worn cassette. So, to your point; you don't throw out your rotation of old worn chains, you keep using them. I have no proof for you though!

[Simon E]

HoldingOn wrote:

HoldingOn wrote:

As with both cycling and running, I think natural rhythm comes into play a lot. I’ve spent some time trying to force myself into a higher cadence when running, but have actually found it easier to increase my cycling cadence.

High v low cadence cycling has been discussed for decades with AFAIK no definitive answer. Self-selected cadence seems to be as effective as anything.

However, it may be worth practising higher cadences – it may help you cope better with wide-range single chainring gearing where there are large steps between adjacent gears). And there is definitely evidence that low ~50 rpm cadence intervals can bring fitness improvements.

I suspect with running that your stride length (and therefore step rate) is much harder to change than the speed at which you twiddle pedals while seated on a bike. For anyone wanting to know more I’d refer to Alex Hutchinson’s articles at Outside Online and @sweatscience on twitter.

[bikes]

Do you mean that it’s much
Do you mean that it’s much easier to use an ultrasonic cleaner and wax a chain than it is to use jars of spirits and oil as per my method?

Perhaps I used the wrong type of wax when I tried it. I immersed a degreased chain in a slow cooker of candle wax but it didn’t withstand more than a few hours of riding in the rain before becoming noisy.

[HoldingOn]

It has massively increased it

It has massively increased it, because you combined it with a 58 to 9 gearing?

(yes, that’s right – I have no idea if those are even remotely plausible sizes or if it is how you express a front to rear gearing ratio)

I was interested to know if I was faster at low rpm large front + small rear or high rpm small front + large rear.

I actually did the same experiment with my running cadence. Short stride + high cadence or long stride + low cadence.

As with both cycling and running, I think natural rhythm comes into play a lot. I’ve spent some time trying to force myself into a higher cadence when running, but have actually found it easier to increase my cycling cadence.

And there you go, I’ve bored the internet 

[Welsh boy]

HoldingOn wrote:

HoldingOn wrote:

I have actually played around with my cadence, to see if a higher cadence wears out the chain quicker, as well as how it affects my speed)

And I have, i use a very low cadence and guess what that has done to my speed!

[Author]

Replies