# Fixed gear / drivetrain wear distribution



## silva (8 Sep 2019)

I've read that people swap cheaper parts in order to make more expensive parts wear slower, ex "rotating" 3 chains on a single chainring so that the single chainring lasts longer.
The rear cog I use has a "lifetime guarantee" on condition that it is flipped every X miles (of course this guarantee is a practical non-sense - it all wears, and what's a "lifetime"?
So this is about the idea to flip or "rotate" (on their mount) chainrings / cogs (so all sprockets).
Due to the pedaling force nothing being a linear force but a fluctuating one due to 2 separate strokes every turn, certain teeths must wear faster than others.
Same for chain links, especially in case of a dividable / integer ratio alike 48/16=3, or an offcenter chainring or its mount.
So who here follows a "regime" to distribute the wear, ex flipping/rotating a chainring/cog, and which one?


----------



## Cycleops (8 Sep 2019)

I suspect nobody does that, I certainly don't. 
How long do you think you will live and what is the price of your 'lifetime guarantee ' rear cog?


----------



## fossyant (8 Sep 2019)

Nope never bothered. Just replaced the fixed sprocket and chain at the same time. Not exactly expensive.


----------



## rogerzilla (8 Sep 2019)

Use a sprocket and ring combo that gives even, or nearly even, wear on the sprocket. 47 x 18 or 49 x 18 are optimal. 48 x 18 is marginal. 48 x 16 is as bad as it gets. A 19T rear sprocket works with most chainring sizes.


----------



## fossyant (8 Sep 2019)

I had a 16T and if I didn't swap the chain (move it on a link) it would run like a tractor if I'd put the chain back on. This happened once, when I'd changed the tyres for Durano Plus, and didn't have any flats for about a year, so I'd not 'removed' the wheel. The sprocket had work with the chain, and when I put the chain on again, it was terrible until I advanced the chain by 1 link. After this I deliberately moved the chain every month or so. Only happens with 'evens' sprockets.


----------



## sleuthey (8 Sep 2019)

silva said:


> Same for chain links, especially in case of a dividable / integer ratio alike 48/16=3


You have a point, and you are mathematically correct, but if this concerns you why not just shift the chain along a few links every so often?


----------



## Ming the Merciless (8 Sep 2019)

Use a chain with a prime number of links and you'll get even wear on your chain rings and rear cog.


----------



## silva (8 Sep 2019)

sleuthey said:


> You have a point, and you are mathematically correct, but if this concerns you why not just shift the chain along a few links every so often?


That's what I did with the first and second chain of the bike. And that last is precisely what I'm asking here. I initially had a 48/16 and I shifted the chain 12 links "forward" direction, that 12 based on the thought that it was a quarter of the chainring teeth number. A pedal stroke causes the chainrings teeth directly on and after it to wear more, two pedal strokes then means 2 most worn and 2 least worn teeth(series), so shifting a quarter should bring the least worn teeth towards the most wearing position. The fluctuating load also causes a wear pattern within the chain, with max and min difference depending on the fractional part length of the gear ratio. My initial 48/16 setup thus was such a worst possible case. My current 47/16 should spread that out way more, limiting any shifting effort to solely the chainring.
But it needs an exact shifting, any deviation causes a number worn teeth / a few chain links to still be positioned on a more load / more worn. So there might be a system possible, that defines precisely which regime to follow for which gear case.


----------



## fossyant (8 Sep 2019)

Don't shift a chain an even number of links forward on an evens sprocket/chain wheel setup - just move it forward 1 link every so often. The issue is worse with evens sprockets - chain rings are much bigger so never an issue.


----------



## dave r (8 Sep 2019)

Just ride the bike, change the chain when it's knackered, change the sprocket when it's knackered, you're making something simple unnecessarily complicated.


----------



## sleuthey (8 Sep 2019)

I completely see where the OP is coming from but like they say on the "we buy any car" add, I value my time and I'd prefer to just replace the chain and sprocket when they are worn. I know this might slightly shorten the time between changing but I'm willing to pay for convenience and I do not buy ones made from solid gold.


----------



## silva (4 Nov 2019)

Upon all worn, I changed all to new, and a 47 instead of 48t chainring.
That solved (proved afterwards) the problem of an increasing chain tension variation.
The basic variation, about equally sized, remains unsolved.
But since it doesn't grow, it doesn't become problematic (choice wreck bearings against risk chain falling off) it's just annoyant, extra work at retension.


----------



## silva (24 Nov 2019)

As a last try to get rid of that remaining part of the chain tension variation, and since I had to replace the crankset anyway due to both arms broken, I decided to let the square taper axle and cranks replace by the same Octalink system I have on my previous bike that never had such a chain tension variation.
Bad luck though - the system wasn't available with my current chainring mount bcd 144 mm so I had to chose 130 mm, rendering my stock spare rings useless and requiring me to order new, which I did couple days ago.
So over a couple weeks I will see if this last try succeeds or fails its goal.

Aside, in the past I found on two second hand occasions stainless steel chains marked "08BSS" which I decided to buy. I measured, and it looked like these would fit a bicycle. My interest in these was for winter / road salt occasions. But as I later discovered when trying to mount one - they didn't fit the chainring. Today I found their specifications and the roller has a slightly bigger diameter so these purchases (same prices as new common bicycle chains) were a fail, although not costly ones.
Today I checked specifications of motorcycle chains. 415 and 420 appear to be totally bicycle compatible (singlespeed only ofc). I checked clearance for a 420 and it should fit the bike. 415 is 3/16" wide and 420 is 1/4" wide. I checked around and an IRIS RX420 looks like a good gain/cost candidate. 
My motivation is to minimalise wear at its first cause: the chain. If that wears slower then the rest will too. It's the chain that eats sprocket teeth when increased pitch due to wear, not vice versa.
This chain will have quite some play on a 1/8" sprocket, but I don't think this will give away anything substantial of the achieved benefit. Maybe this play could be seen as some lateral movement space for the chain, to compensate (in a degree) for the stiffness of such heavy chain.


----------



## fossala (9 Dec 2019)

silva said:


> I decided to let the square taper axle and cranks replace by the same Octalink ...the system wasn't available with my current chainring mount bcd 144 mm


Dura ace 7710 is octalink and 144bcd. I'd guess whatever you picked up is a road crank and not a track one. The upside of 7710 is you can get a fixed gear stages powermeter for it.


----------



## silva (10 Dec 2019)

fossala said:


> Dura ace 7710 is octalink and 144bcd. I'd guess whatever you picked up is a road crank and not a track one. The upside of 7710 is you can get a fixed gear stages powermeter for it.


I asked the dealer about hollowtech and the answer was negative, given reason was a fixed axle lenght causing no chainline adjustment possibilities. My chainline is 57 mm. True / not true?


----------



## Stompier (10 Dec 2019)

silva said:


> I asked the dealer about hollowtech and the answer was negative, given reason was a fixed axle lenght causing no chainline adjustment possibilities. My chainline is 57 mm. True / not true?



Track chainline is typically 42mm, so 57mm is a long way off. HT2 BBs will not be adjustable, but then neither will most of the other sealed units BBs (like 7710) either.


----------



## silva (11 Dec 2019)

Nevertheless octalink apparently was possible - only that unlike my previous bike where I can see the side of the axle and thus the splined shape, I can't see it with this bike from the outside. My previous bike showed external cilindric ends too, this bike not, everything sits inside the bottom bracket shell.


----------



## Stompier (11 Dec 2019)

None of that means the axle is adjustable.


----------



## silva (11 Dec 2019)

Stompier said:


> None of that means the axle is adjustable.


How would an axle be 'adjustable'? 
In order to make a chainline straight, an axle length is chosen.
Is octalink / hollowtech different than square taper in this?


----------



## Stompier (11 Dec 2019)

silva said:


> How would an axle be 'adjustable'?
> In order to make a chainline straight, an axle length is chosen.
> Is octalink / hollowtech different than square taper in this?



Axles are not generally adjustable laterally. You seemed to be implying that they were. To be honest, I'm not really sure what your issue actually is.


----------



## mangid (13 Dec 2019)

Stompier said:


> Axles are not generally adjustable laterally. You seemed to be implying that they were. To be honest, I'm not really sure what your issue actually is.



I might be misunderstanding, but if you put spacers on Hollowtech BB on the drive side you can move the chain ring to change the chainline ?


----------



## Stompier (13 Dec 2019)

mangid said:


> I might be misunderstanding, but if you put spacers on Hollowtech BB on the drive side you can move the chain ring to change the chainline ?



In principle you could do that. But you would also limit the amount of axle showing on the NDS and the crank arm might not seat properly or tighten effectively.


----------



## davidphilips (18 Dec 2019)

mangid said:


> I might be misunderstanding, but if you put spacers on Hollowtech BB on the drive side you can move the chain ring to change the chainline ?


If you did this you would also move the crank arms both over to the right, you may not notice it when cycling but the bike would be better if you did not.


----------



## silva (21 Dec 2019)

Stompier said:


> Axles are not generally adjustable laterally. You seemed to be implying that they were. To be honest, I'm not really sure what your issue actually is.


I didn't mean adjustable, also not implying in any way (that I can think of). In a square taper case, one choses a longer axle in order to change the distance from chainring to center (aka chainline). According to the dealer, in the case HollowTech, there is only one axle length, so nothing else to chose and thus no chainline change possible.


----------



## Stompier (21 Dec 2019)

silva said:


> According to the dealer, in the case HollowTech, there is only one axle length, so nothing else to chose and thus no chainline change possible.


The dealer is correct.


----------



## silva (22 Dec 2019)

Stompier said:


> The dealer is correct.


So the answer on my question
"In order to make a chainline straight, an axle length is chosen.
Is octalink / hollowtech different than square taper in this?"
was a yes on hollowtech.
Hollowtech is a derival of octalink.
Apparently octalink on its own does allow axle length choice.
What is the reason for the hollowtech system only allowing one axle length?


----------



## Stompier (22 Dec 2019)

silva said:


> So the answer on my question
> "In order to make a chainline straight, an axle length is chosen.
> Is octalink / hollowtech different than square taper in this?"
> was a yes on hollowtech.
> ...



Just to be clear - are you talking about hollowtech, or hollowtech 2? They are very different. Hollowtech 1 is basically Octalink in design. Hollowtech 2 has external screw in cups. It is not possible to alter chainline on Hollowtech 2. The only way to alter chainline on Hollowtech 1/Octalink is by switching axle length. But I don't know enough about HT1 to know if different axle lengths are available. And even if they are/were, the system has been out of production for so long that they might not be that easy to find anyway.

Generally speaking - if you're running single speed, it's going to be so much easier to use square taper bb/chainset, especially if you're using track ends and a fixed/ss rear wheel. If you're running some kind of hybrid/road conversion, then I can't really help.


----------



## silva (22 Dec 2019)

All I was told is that it would be octalink and not hollowtech, latter due to the length choices limit of 1.


----------



## Stompier (22 Dec 2019)

silva said:


> All I was told is that it would be octalink and not hollowtech, latter due to the length choices limit of 1.



Octalink was certainly available in different sizes, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree by looking for a solution to all this by pursuing an outdated technical standard which is long past its sell-by date (by about 10 years at least).


----------



## silva (22 Dec 2019)

Stompier said:


> Octalink was certainly available in different sizes, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree by looking for a solution to all this by pursuing an outdated technical standard which is long past its sell-by date (by about 10 years at least).


I actually wanted hollowtech as attempt to solve a couple problems, for a simple reason: my previous bike had such a bottom bracket / axle and unlike the last bike with its square taper axle it didn't suffer a chain tension variation nor broken cranks.
Hollowtech proved itself for me, and know what, over the years/decades I noticed that old things lasted longer than new ones.


----------



## fossala (23 Dec 2019)

Stompier said:


> Octalink was certainly available in different sizes, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree by looking for a solution to all this by pursuing an outdated technical standard which is long past its sell-by date (by about 10 years at least).


It isn't outdated on track. 7710 is still one of the most popular configurations. It is also an easy upgrade path for power meters on the track as well. I have a 7710 with a stages power meter. Used it for the past year in all sorts of conditions audaxing. Still on my first bottom bracket and it's still silky smooth, no bad for outdated tech.


----------



## Stompier (23 Dec 2019)

fossala said:


> It isn't outdated on track. 7710 is still one of the most popular configurations. It is also an easy upgrade path for power meters on the track as well. I have a 7710 with a stages power meter. Used it for the past year in all sorts of conditions audaxing. Still on my first bottom bracket and it's still silky smooth, no bad for outdated tech.



Track options are current, but are limited to one axle length and two shell widths in Dura Ace, and that's it. There's nothing actually wrong with the functionality.


----------



## fossala (23 Dec 2019)

Stompier said:


> Track options are current, but are limited to one axle length and two shell widths in Dura Ace, and that's it. There's nothing actually wrong with the functionality.


That is due to chainlines being a standard. Why make multiple? Op's best option is get a hub with a 42mm chainline and run track components.


----------



## Stompier (23 Dec 2019)

fossala said:


> That is due to chainlines being a standard. Why make multiple?


I know that. I meant limited in terms of the OP's needs.


fossala said:


> Op's best option is get a hub with a 42mm chainline and run track components.


Agreed.


----------



## silva (23 Dec 2019)

If the chain has to run that much closer to the bikes center then my chainring size and thus gear ratio gets capped to that of a kid bike, so that best option I interprete as humor?


----------



## Stompier (23 Dec 2019)

silva said:


> If the chain has to run that much closer to the bikes center then my chainring size and thus gear ratio gets capped to that of a kid bike, so that best option I interprete as humor?



Your bike must be particularly unusual or unique - what is it?


----------



## Milkfloat (23 Dec 2019)

Stompier said:


> Your bike must be particularly unusual or unique - what is it?



It is not the bike that is unusual and unique


----------



## CXRAndy (31 Dec 2019)

stick a chain tensioner on it and be done with it


----------



## rogerzilla (1 Jan 2020)

57mm is an extremely wide chainline. The biggest I've seen for a rear hub was 50mm (On-One hub intended for use on MTB frames with a HT2 crankset). Road cranks (Shimano spec) give about a 46mm chainline for the outer ring position, which is why some "conversion" hubs go for 45-46mm chainline; it means you can keep your existing road cranks.


----------



## silva (5 Jan 2020)

Milkfloat said:


> It is not the bike that is unusual and unique


Any problem with that, SIR ???


----------



## silva (5 Jan 2020)

Stompier said:


> Your bike must be particularly unusual or unique - what is it?


The one in my avatar pic. Fixed gear with 62 mm tyres. Try to remember now, thanksalot!


----------



## silva (5 Jan 2020)

rogerzilla said:


> 57mm is an extremely wide chainline. The biggest I've seen for a rear hub was 50mm (On-One hub intended for use on MTB frames with a HT2 crankset). Road cranks (Shimano spec) give about a 46mm chainline for the outer ring position, which is why some "conversion" hubs go for 45-46mm chainline; it means you can keep your existing road cranks.


Frame clearance is not enough for a >48 teeth chainring.
Chainline same reason - shorter chainline limits chainring to < 48t - I don't want to hunt pedals, I want to hunt road.


----------



## rogerzilla (5 Jan 2020)

What hub are you using to get that chainline?


----------



## Milkfloat (5 Jan 2020)

silva said:


> Any problem with that, SIR ???


Not at all, I always think of this “The *reasonable man* adapts himself to the world: the *unreasonable* one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all *progress* depends on the *unreasonable man*.”


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (5 Jan 2020)

I would have just stuck a pair of 26" x 2" Marathons, a pannier rack, and a pair of mudguards on a decent quality large frame size 18 speed 1990's rigid MTB and saved myself the £4k and the endless amounts of hassle personally.....


----------



## silva (6 Jan 2020)

Milkfloat said:


> Not at all, I always think of this “The *reasonable man* adapts himself to the world: the *unreasonable* one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all *progress* depends on the *unreasonable man*.”


*Reason* requires *argument*.


----------



## silva (6 Jan 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> I would have just stuck a pair of 26" x 2" Marathons, a pannier rack, and a pair of mudguards on a decent quality large frame size 18 speed 1990's rigid MTB and saved myself the £4k and the endless amounts of hassle personally.....


It's the other way around - it's those endless amounts of hassle I wanted to dump with this last bike, only that the dealer screwed it up - failed to meet what I had demanded. Requiring DIY by me. 2 years later, the problems solved except one (the chains tension variation), although partly solved by changing that recommended but stupid 48/16 ratio to 47/16.
See, my usage of the bike isn't your usage, I'm not you remember?






I


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (7 Jan 2020)

silva said:


> It's the other way around - it's those endless amounts of hassle I wanted to dump with this last bike, only that the dealer screwed it up - failed to meet what I had demanded. Requiring DIY by me. 2 years later, the problems solved except one (the chains tension variation), although partly solved by changing that recommended but stupid 48/16 ratio to 47/16.
> See, my usage of the bike isn't your usage, I'm not you remember?



So, in order to eliminate endless amounts of hassle associated with normal bikes, you've now spent the last two years trying to eliminate the issues that your "hassle free" bike was meant to avoid? Makes perfect sense to me......


----------



## silva (26 Jan 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> So, in order to eliminate endless amounts of hassle associated with normal bikes, you've now spent the last two years trying to eliminate the issues that your "hassle free" bike was meant to avoid? Makes perfect sense to me......


Well yes, there has been elimination, results are there - drivetrain now run 3 times the miles before. 18 instead of 6 months.
- 5 mm wrong chainline has been identified, and solved by spacers between brake disc mount and cog.
- the dealer recommended gear ratio 48/16 that concentrated wear and increased the chain tension variation over usage, solved by changing it to 47/16

At the moment I'm working on the idea to mount a type 420 (415 also option) motorcycle chain, current problem could be (different specifications on the web) that the roller diameter is 8 mm instead of bicycles 7.75 mm, meaning that it would need sprockets with wider valleys between / shorter teeth. Meaning some material has to be removed in order to prevent a rough wear in period.
And also the idea of a chromoly steel chainring. The (rear) cog I have used on this bike is made from chromoly steel, proved itself, and a chainring also that material just sounds logical, the added weight is a nothing in my bike application.

In my opinion, the chain is the by far major factor in wear. Recently, I had to mount a new chainring due to another crank spider mount, I kept the old chain, and the chain ate the new chainring towards its own wear level in just a week.
So the initial wear (longer becoming under tension) of a chain is the biggest drivetrain mileage killer. It's useless to mount chromoly / whatever harder/strongermaterial sprockets - the impact is just a fraction of the chains impact.
In order to reduce that initial longer becoming, bigger bearing surfaces have to be realized, ex 1/8" instead of 3/32" (=50% more bearing surface). The thicker link plates / longer pens of 3/16" chains increased the bearing surface further. The entry cc level motorbicycle chains increase the roller / pen bearing surface, and also feature full / separate / solid bushings.
Added to that: on a same 1/8" wide sprocket, the chain has sideways moving room, which may compensate in a degree for a chainline deviation.

I hunted a drivetrain lasting a year.
Reached 1,5 years.
Now I'm hunting 3 years.
I don't judge that as a BOO.
Anyone here does?


----------



## Racing roadkill (26 Jan 2020)

The term Cogged gearwheels ( often abbreviated to “cogs”) include sprockets, and chainrings, but I find it’s useful to differentiate where possible, to avoid confusion.


----------



## silva (26 Jan 2020)

Racing roadkill said:


> The term Cogged gearwheels ( often abbreviated to “cogs”) include sprockets, and chainrings, but I find it’s useful to differentiate where possible, to avoid confusion.


Ok. The UK firm where I found and buy these drivetrain parts uses cog on their site solely for the rear sprocket, hence I took the terminology over.
So for clarity, my "cog" referred to the rear, sprocket, rear gearwheel.

Today and yesterday I spent quite some time (hours) to search the web for motorcycle chain specs (I knew near to nothing about them). In the past I have tried a stainless steel 08B industrial chain (not on purpose, found some lengths on flea markets at bargain price). I tried to mount it and failed, I could only lay it over a part of the chainring teeth. Later on I found the specs and the cause had been a roller diameter of 8.5 mm instead of the bicycle 7.75 mm.
Wikipedia states it wrong:


> The chain in use on modern bicycles has a 1⁄2 inch (12.7 mm) pitch, which is the distance from one pin center to another, ANSI standard #40, where the 4 in "#40" indicates the pitch of the chain in eighths of an inch; and is standard 606 (metric) #8, where the 8 indicates the pitch in sixteenths of an inch. *Its roller diameter is 5⁄16 inch (7.9 mm)*


Apparently, "420" has several specs out there.
Today I measured (with a caliper) the roller diameter of a new Gusset Tank chain, it was precisely that 7.75 mm.

A search for the specs of a type 420 motorcycle chain also delives different results.
The Regina General Catalogue 2020 shows under "Urban" a type 420 chain with 7.75 mm as roller diameter. Also some other sites (alike a DID chain on http://www.wemoto.be/parts/picture/bc-3010640/ specified as 7.77 mm).
But http://www.gizmology.net/sprockets.htm specifies under "Bicycle and motorcycle..." a roller diameter of 5/16" for the type 420 chain, which is 7.93 mm. And other sources, expressed in inches and converted to metric, even 8 mm.

Hence I decided to send a mail to the shop I want to order these from, to ask what their type 420 roller diameter is.
In the case of a bigger roller diameter, I could still try such a 7.93 or 8 mm roller on worn gearwheels (using your terminology here). In the end, my Velosolo gearwheels are now worn enough to allow bigger rollers to sit down. But it's ofc a mess to make that a common practice for the future. Likely a little 420 chain wear makes the rollers to eat gearwheel teeth totally away hehe.


----------



## silva (9 Feb 2020)

Purchased chain brand/model as mentioned above and the shops guy measured correct (enough) - it was 7.75 mm and thus compatible with bicycle sprocket teeth shapes.

Today I made such Regina 420 Urban chain on length (105 links + 1 closing link), using a YC-324 chain tool bought from UK Velosolo. Despite it is specified for 3/16" bicycle chains, it was usable / worked for this motorcycle 420 chain, with 1 problem though: the pin jammed in the base plate hole of the tool - I had to hammer it back out with a punch.

Apparently, the pin diameter of the 420 motorcycle chain is bigger than the one of a bicycle chain, rather surprising because since the roller outer diameter is the same, either roller inner diameter must be bigger (so thinner roller) either bushing thinner. I looked it up and found a 3.57 mm pin diameter for bicycle, and 3.94 mm for motorcycle 420 chain.

So the chain tools hole must have been deformed (to bigger) - I measured the pin and it still was the same.

An option is to drill out (to 4 mm - since a standard drill size) the chain tool and reserve it for these 420 motorcycle chains.

I didn't try to mount the chain yet, I need the bike nearly daily so it's something for an occasion early in the weekend, so that I have time to test ride. Also, I want to replace all 3 drivetrain parts same time - not mix worn / new.

The last potential problem is chain > frame clearance.
Due to the excessive chainline, with the hub moved 5 mm away from the center towards the dropout, and the rear sprocket / cog moved a further 5 mm away from the IS disc brake mount, there is little free room.
My current chain (Gusset bmx model "Tank" pin length is 11.6 mm, this Regina 420 Urban chains pin length is 16.1 mm, so the latter is 4.5 mm wider thus 2.25 mm more room to 1 side.
Since the inner width increased from 3.175 mm doubled to 6.35 mm, the motorcycle 420 chain has 3.175 mm sideways play on a sprocket meaning that the total possible sideways space requirement to one side is 3.175 + 2.25 = 5.425 mm.
I just checked and this distance could be too much.
In case, one option is to reduce the cogs total spacers from 5 to 4 or 3 mm, the chainline will be off by the same but since the motorcycle chain will have 3.175 mm sideways play on the sprocket teeth, the chain has room to move towards the shortest / straigth running path.

And finally, if above works out, the motorcycle usable, an eventual wear benefit will come at the cost of a harder to pedal bicycle.
A Gusset bicycle bmx Tank chain link weights 550 gr / 102 = 5.4 gram / link.
A Regina 420 Urban chain link weights 965 gr / 134 = 7.2 gram / link.
That's 1/3 more weight to pedal 'round.
Good for training. 
An option is to compensate this along a lower gear, now 47/16, to 46/16. Wear related benefit could be back to the even numbers of teeth (as Yellow Saddle explained in a post somewhere - allowing links to wear in and thus mesh properly with sprocket teeth) I had with 48/16 - the ratio I dumped due to integer and thus wear concentrating, unlike 46/16.


----------



## silva (28 Feb 2020)

This morning I mounted that Regina 420 Urban motorcycle chain (1/4" internal width)
It succeeded - some 3 mm clearance left between inner side of crank arm and between rear cog and dropout.
The rest of the day I rode 50 km with it. But there was alot head/sidewind so don't know yet the impact on my average speed.
I did have the impression that I should have been faster sometimes.
Time will tell, also about my goal to reduce wear / replacements.


----------



## fossala (28 Feb 2020)

silva said:


> This morning I mounted that Regina 420 Urban motorcycle chain (1/4" internal width)
> It succeeded - some 3 mm clearance left between inner side of crank arm and between rear cog and dropout.
> The rest of the day I rode 50 km with it. But there was alot head/sidewind so don't know yet the impact on my average speed.
> I did have the impression that I should have been faster sometimes.
> Time will tell, also about my goal to reduce wear / replacements.


Can you take a picture?


----------



## silva (29 Feb 2020)

Question, unlike bicycles oiled chains, this motorcycle chain is delivered greased. Kinda sticky white grease. Also present on the connection link with a reminder card to not touch the pens as to keep the grease on it.
Why the difference?
According to what I've read here, and what I also belief myself, is that the lubricating agent is during tension pushed away from the bearing surfaces and flows back during the unloaded part of the cycle. I assume grease gets pushed away too (wrong?) but grease doesn't flow back.
I now don't know what to do, normally I put oil on a chain, both to lubricate and protect against rust.
If I put oil on this chain, likely the grease drops in viscosity and can sneak out.
Maybe that last is different between motor and bicycle chains, this motorcycle chain has full bushings (so an inner and outer roller, unlike a bicycle where the inner plates have ridges "simulating" rolling). Maybe the motorcycle chains bearing surfaces are closed environments.

Edit: already found out oil is a necessity: quite some brown spots on the chains rollers: rust - had rain yesterday.
Likely the motorcycle chain is ment for a protected running environment - grease (alone) does not suffice.
So I just put an oil drip on every roller, and a brush to cover the outside in oil.


----------



## silva (1 Mar 2020)

silva said:


> ...
> In my opinion, the chain is the by far major factor in wear. Recently, I had to mount a new chainring due to another crank spider mount, I kept the old chain, and *the chain ate the new chainring towards its own wear level in just a week*.
> ...


A correction -*that* was a wrong judgement I made, when I replaced rear cog and chain few days ago with a same new cog and the motorcycle chain, I had initially intended to also replace the chainring despite running only some months.
But I laid the new over the old, and there wasn't a clearly visible tooth shape difference. The tips abit rounded off but no edge wear. So I decided to keep the chainring.
The tooths of the rear cog, already been flipped once, however showed clearly visible further wear, to the point that a tooth could break off alike someone showed a picture of somewhere on the forum.
Maybe the latters removed material caused the spike of black grit on the chain after that weak.
Probably the cleaning made it easier to judge tooth shape differences.
It has also been a repeating story. The previous drivetrain's cog also started ticking (hook shaped), I flipped it, ticking changed from pushing / pedaling forward to pushing back to slowdown, with some uglier noises during the moment forward>backward.
So I know it's cog and chain end when I get the ticking in both directions, and when the teeth became shorter in the middle of their hight than at their top.


----------

