From: jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org
Subject: Re: Cleaning the chain.....
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Message-ID: <14bk9.30082$Ik.653477@typhoon.sonic.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 04:37:17 GMT

Matt O'Toole writes:

> Wasn't flexibility the reason for the newer bushingless chains?
> Would an older Regina, etc., even work with a modern 7, 8, or 9
> speed drivetrain (assuming it was narrow enough)?

Not at all.  The 4-part chain was introduced by Sedis in the days of
10-speeds mainly because it got rid of four assembly steps and one
precision part per link. I recall when they were introduced with the
ad campaign that they were lighter than other chains.  The reason for
this is that the upset collar is part of the side plate and therefore
does not detract from the cross section of the inner link plate as a
sleeve does.  This enables use of less expensive steel as well.

The chains were initially about half the price of a good Regina chain
but as time went on, that went by the wayside.  Meanwhile the rest of
the chain manufacturers either got out of the market or changed to
this design.  As I said, you won't find these chains on any other
machine.  No one is dumb enough to cut chain life more than fourfold
to save a few grams per chain.

As I said, with dirt and grime of trails and 2000 miles in the Alps
with rain and slop, my 5-part chains last 20000 miles.  I haven't had
a "modern" chain last much more than 2500 miles.  (life = 1% wear)

Jobst Brandt  <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org>  Palo Alto CA

From: jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org
Subject: Re: Cleaning the chain.....
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Message-ID: <rmpk9.30363$Ik.658249@typhoon.sonic.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 20:52:39 GMT

Jon Isaacs writes:

>> As I said, with dirt and grime of trails and 2000 miles in the Alps
>> with rain and slop, my 5-part chains last 20000 miles.  I haven't
>> had a "modern" chain last much more than 2500 miles. (life=1% wear)

> What shifters are you using these chains with and where do you get
> these chains??  Will they work with 7 speed indexing??

It's like MA-2 rims, I stockpiled all the ones I could find and am
using stuff that ain't no more.  The CS-X Regina chain is the
classiest chain made.  Its outer side plates on the inward side are
cut out on the edge that faces the sprocket while the outside ones are
chrome plated and full.  The cutouts made shifting to lager sprockets
easier back in the days before side cut and tip mutilated sprockets on
cassettes were used.  It is an asymmetrical chain that goes on only
one way of four possible.

I use a SunTour or Shimano 8-speed derailleur.  I have used both.

Jobst Brandt  <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org>  Palo Alto CA

From: jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org
Subject: Re: Cleaning the chain.....
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Message-ID: <hXpk9.30383$Ik.658775@typhoon.sonic.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 21:31:57 GMT

Tim McNamara writes:

> Is there some sort of resource to see the differences between these
> chain designs?  I can't figure out what you're talking about and
> seeing an exploded drawing would help.

Not an exploded drawing but one that shows the parts:

http://www.diamondchain.co.uk/

The left end of the chain shows that the inner side plate has a
tubular sleeve pressed into it.  Chain rollers run on these sleeves
Between the side plates to form a link.  Links are connected into a
chain by outer plates with pressed in pins that run inside the
sleeves.

In contrast, an upset collar 4-part chain has no sleeve and replaces
it with an an upset collar on the inner plate, two opposing plates
leaving a gap in the center, under the roller and around the link pin.
The reduced contact area and the direct path for contamination into
the link pin is its weakness.  It is wear of the pins and upset
collars that lengthens chain pitch.

Some motorcycle chains even have an O-ring seal at the end of the
sleeves to prevent contamination and lubricant loss.  The 4-part
bicycle chain ignores these problems while the 5-part chains did this
far better.

There's more on this on page 3 of this series of pictures, giving
nomenclature and details.

http://www.diamondchain.com/PDF/DC_cycle_chain.pdf

Click on the right-arrow At the bottom of the picture to get to page 3.

Jobst Brandt  <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org>  Palo Alto CA

From: jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org
Subject: Re: Stainless Steal Chains
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 21:16:40 GMT

Lauhoe who? writes:

> Is anyone using a stainless steal chain? What's your opinion of them?

Two reasons for not making stainless steel bicycle chains:

1. Stainless steel cannot be made as hard as other alloy and carbon
   steels so that from this alone its wear rate would be higher.

2. Stainless steel is such a poor thermal conductor that it galls
   easily under friction loads.  That is why it is hard to machine, it
   burns the cutting tool easily.  Such a chain would weld itself
   together under load.

That means they wouldn't work on a bicycle.  Besides, chains with
outer plates chromed are available.

On the other hand, why do you want a stainless steel chain if you plan
on riding the bicycle.  If you want it to look neat and clean, you'd
better not ride much and not in bad weather.

Jobst Brandt    <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org>

From: jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org
Subject: Re: Stainless Steal Chains
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 23:35:49 GMT

Tony Raven <tony_raven@dial.pipex.com> writes:

>> That means they wouldn't work on a bicycle.

> Is that why Wippermann sell them then?

They don't, but the side plates may be stainless steel.  The wearing
parts, pins and inner side platess (sleeves), definitely are not.

Jobst Brandt    <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org>

From: jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org
Subject: Re: Stainless Steal Chains
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 03:10:33 GMT

Bob Qzzi? writes:

>>> 1. Stainless steel cannot be made as hard as other alloy and carbon
>>>    steels so that from this alone its wear rate would be higher.

>> Then why are stainless spokes recommended?

> Spokes don't need to be hard.

Actually they do.  Hardness is a misnomer because the metal does not
get harder or stiffer as one might imagine from the word.  The yield
stress for the metal is made higher and that is what makes spokes
strong.  In spokes it is achieved through work hardening by drawing.

Jobst Brandt    <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org>

From: "Tho X. Bui" <blahx3@earthlink.net>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Stainless Steal Chains
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 05:58:38 GMT

bobqzzi@mediaone.net wrote:
>
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2001 03:10:33 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org
> wrote:
> >Actually they do.  Hardness is a misnomer because the metal does not
> >get harder or stiffer as one might imagine from the word.  The yield
> >stress for the metal is made higher and that is what makes spokes
> >strong.  In spokes it is achieved through work hardening by drawing.
> >
> >Jobst Brandt    <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org>
> >
>
> I assumed we were talking about surface hardness, given the initial
> thread was about chains.
>
> Given I'm not an engineer by education or training, I'm quite sure I
> may be using the wrong terms.  In the automotive field, where I worked
> for many years, hardness was used to refer to the surface hardness of
> an object, as measured, for example, on the Rockwell C scale, and was
> not used to refer to the yield strength of an entire structure.
>
> It is my impression that spokes are quite soft, and the surface can be
> deformed rather easily, but, obviously, they have a high yield
> strength, which is the important characteristic they need.
>
> Is surface hardness directly related to yield stress/strength?

Yes.

The hardness testing usually involve indenting the metal with a hard
object (diamond pyramid, hardened steel ball, etc). As any mechanical
metallurgy text will tell you, this involves the plastic deformation of
the metal and therefore related to the yield and ult.tens. strength of
the metal.

In fact, if you look at hardness conversion charts, most have a "tensile
strength " equivalent to the hardness reading.  They are amazingly
accurate for ferrous alloys, but not so much so for some other families.

The wrap up is that it is not incorrect to say that hardness is similar
to strength, even when specifically call out yield or tensile strength.
It is a simplification, but not an incorrect statement.

Tho

From: jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org
Subject: Re: Stainless Steal Chains
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 08:03:24 GMT

Bob Quindazzi writes:

>>>>> 1. Stainless steel cannot be made as hard as other alloy and
>>>>>    carbon steels so that from this alone its wear rate would be
>>>>>    higher.

>>>> Then why are stainless spokes recommended?

>>> Spokes don't need to be hard.

>> Actually they do.  Hardness is a misnomer because the metal does
>> not get harder or stiffer as one might imagine from the word.  The
>> yield stress for the metal is made higher and that is what makes
>> spokes strong.  In spokes it is achieved through work hardening by
>> drawing.

> I assumed we were talking about surface hardness, given the initial
> thread was about chains.

> Given I'm not an engineer by education or training, I'm quite sure I
> may be using the wrong terms.  In the automotive field, where I
> worked for many years, hardness was used to refer to the surface
> hardness of an object, as measured, for example, on the Rockwell C
> scale, and was not used to refer to the yield strength of an entire
> structure.

As I said, steels do not get "harder" or change their elastic modulus
with "hardening".  A coat hanger has the same elastic properties as
hardened drill steel of the same cross section.  The difference is how
easily the two take a set when bent or indented.  Surface hardness is
exactly that, but it also does not make the steel "harder", it only
allows it to deform farther before taking a set.  "Hardness" in metals
is a common misunderstanding brought to us from the ancients who
coined the word and who didn't realize that what they observed had no
effect on the elastic modulus.  A coil spring before and after heat
treating has the same stretch to force ratio, only that before, it
would yield and permanently stretch at a lower extension than after.

> It is my impression that spokes are quite soft, and the surface can be
> deformed rather easily, but, obviously, they have a high yield
> strength, which is the important characteristic they need.

They are as hard as one can make them without losing ductility, the
ability to bend without fracture or crazing in the bend.  I think
Damon Rinard has some data on that.  Unfortunately the page with that
information is unavailable at this time:

"Microstructure and Processing of the Bicycle Spoke"
http://www.cmu.edu/errordocs/404/file-not-found.html

> Is surface hardness directly related to yield stress/strength?

Yes... some surface hardened steels are used in applications where
the interior must be ductile even if the surface cracks.  In these
instances the metal is usually shot peened to make sure the surface is
in compression and will not crack in tension.

Jobst Brandt    <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org>

From: jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org
Subject: Re: Stainless Steal Chains
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 07:22:11 GMT

Chalo Colina writes:

>> Two reasons for not making stainless steel bicycle chains:

>> 1. Stainless steel cannot be made as hard as other alloy and carbon
>>    steels so that from this alone its wear rate would be higher.

> Hardness is clearly not the primary criterion for wear resistance.
> Industrially, bronzes and even Babbitt (a very soft eutectic alloy),
> are used for their superiority as plain bearings.

You are not talking about a bearing with oily fine grit in it, the
kind that chains run under in most cases.  Steel on babbitt bearings
is common in auto crankshafts but requires clean filtered oil.
Bicycle chains run essentially dry or worse, full of abrasive
lubricant.  Hardness IS the measure of chain life.  Just because there
are soft/hard bearing pairs does not alter this.  Besides, why would
chain manufacturers mention their high hardness in promotional
brochures?

>> 2. Stainless steel is such a poor thermal conductor that it galls
>>    easily under friction loads.  That is why it is hard to machine,
>>    it burns the cutting tool easily.  Such a chain would weld
>>    itself together under load.

> In the absence of any lubrication or surface treatment, even a
> hardened steel chain would tend to do this.

Not so.  If you have had the experience of riding in rain for a longer
period and then continuing when the road dried, it is apparent that
the chain works fine without lubricant, even to the extent that it
squeaks.  On inspection, such chains have shiny pins and sleeves.

> With lube, I don't see how a suitably hard stainless alloy would be
> unusually subject to such a degree of galling.  You wouldn't specify
> 302 alloy for a roller chain any more than you'd make one out of
> 1018 mild steel.

The poor thermal conductivity in stainless steel and for instance
titanium, make these metals tend to gall under sliding friction.

>> That means they wouldn't work on a bicycle.  Besides, chains with
>> outer plates chromed are available.

> Stainless might not be the choice for rollers or rivet sleeves, but
> alloys like 17-4PH could have their place in a top-quality chain.  I
> bet a chain with 17-4 sideplates, pins, and rollers, and bronze rivet
> sleeves, would have better wear characteristics and lower running
> friction than a steel chain, while maintaining a corrosion-free finish
> inside and out.

That's a safe bet because no one will perform the test and you can
continue to make these claims.  You'll also notice that no such chain
is made for bicycles or motorcycles, or for that matter automotive
timing chains.  Maybe you ought to tell them about this.

> Red iron oxide aka rust is abrasive and frequently used in
> subtractive polishing compounds.

Hey!  Didn't I just say that about a week ago, but not in connection
with bearing materials.  Polishing is removal of metal and not
something one would do in a bearing interface.

Jobst Brandt    <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org>