Talk:Bicycle chain

message: There is no description of which bikes used the largest, 3⁄16 in (4.8 mm), roller widths.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondebleu (talk • contribs) 20:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest chain width 

message: Not editing the page directly because I don't have enough detailed knowledge, but I do know that chain widths smaller than 3/32" are used on newer 9- and 10-speed road bikes (my 9-speed has a 11/128" width chain). - incandenza 02:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smaller chain widths 

message: I don't think the bicycle chain article should be merged with the roller chain article.  Although today's bicycle chain is a roller chain, there are history, maintenance, and specific size issues that apply only to bicycles. -SCEhardt 15:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Merge 

message: Hello, could someone tell me, how do you know whether your bike requires a 3/32" chain or a 1/8" chain.
Thanx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pc white (talk • contribs) 
:How many gears does your bicycle have in the back?  Typically 1/8" is used for one gear and 3/32" is used for bicycles with many gears and a derailleur. -SCEhardT 20:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chain size

message: :"The role of the lubricant, as far as we can tell, is to take up space so that dirt doesn't get into the chain"
First off, the source claims that statement is speculation. Second off, anyone who's jeans have gotten dirty after a bike ride can attest that wet lubricant is excellent solvent for dirt, and is the reason that dirt got into the chain in first place. Reub2000 (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  huh? 

message: "The chain in use on modern bicycles has a 1/2" pitch, which is ANSI standard #40, where the 4 indicates the pitch of the chain in eighths of an inch, and metric #8, where the 8 indicates the pitch in sixteenths of an inch."
I dont understand. Where does the 4 come from, where does the #8 come from? If the pitch really is 1/2" by standard, then where/why are these pitch numbers used? Must be rewritten and clarified. Velle (talk) 10:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Four eighths is a half. ANSI counts in eighths, ISO standards in sixteenths. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear talk about pitch 

message: "The study, performed in a clean laboratory environment, found that efficiency was not greatly affected by the state of lubrication.[1]"
This test for sure was not made correctly. The chain for sure was not correctly degreased.   
This tests show completely other results: 
http://www.glacierview.net/geowinters/Dirty_Chain_Experiment.html   
http://www.lillylube.com/uploads/Link_to_Velo_Article.pdf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koroliow (talk • contribs) 08:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Efficiency and lubrication. 

message: The article states that nickel may be used in chains due to its galling resistance properties. There's no source for it, and when I went looking I found two: a case study mentioning the effects of nickel alloying in stainless steel, and a Design News article discussing nickel alloys in food processing. Key to this discussion is the alloy referred to as "Waukesha 88". On page 9 of the study, it says "Waukesha 88 contains a second phase high in tin and bismuth, which acts as a solid lubricant and serves to reduce the wear rate despite the high nickel content" (emphasis added). Further down on page 10, there is a discussion of test results revealing that high-nickel content alloys exhibited poor galling resistance, unless it is specifically modified (as Waukesha 88 is). Then, the Design News article which is basically all about Waukesha 88 says that the galling properties are conferred by incorporating bismuth in the alloy, not nickel. Therefore, it seems the claim that nickel is "relatively non-galling" is at least partly incorrect. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious claim about nickel-plated chains 

message: "Chains can also be identified by the number of rear sprockets they can support, anywhere from 3 to 11, and the list below enables measuring a chain 
of unknown origin to determine its suitability.
   6 speed – 7.8 mm (5⁄16 in) (all brands)"
Given common use of "10 speed bike" referring to a bike with 2 chain rings and 5 sprockets in the rear and the quoted sentence, wouldn't it be
clearer if the chart was 6 sprockets... 7 sprockets... etc ?
Fholson 17:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would "10 sprocket" be clearer than "10 speed" ? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bicycle chain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120515165247/http://objectwiki.sciencemuseum.org.uk/wiki/McCammon_Safety_Bicycle.html to http://objectwiki.sciencemuseum.org.uk/wiki/McCammon_Safety_Bicycle.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kmcchain.eu/?en%2Fchain_wear%2F
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kmcchain.eu/?en%2Fmaintenance%2F
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What about the standards for the roller diameter and the "acceptable" range of roller slop? Many chain wear gauges measure "inner" lengths of some number of links on the chain so the roller diameters and amount of slop also influence the measurement. Galt57 (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roller diameter and "slop"