Will Arnold Posted July 26, 2005 Report Share Posted July 26, 2005 which are stronger? the thin version or the fat version? if its the fat version, why? thank you... Will Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT! Posted July 26, 2005 Report Share Posted July 26, 2005 The fatter or thinner the chain itself should have anything to do with it's strengh. They're near enough the same. :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urpedigreechumdog Posted July 26, 2005 Report Share Posted July 26, 2005 Fat, it's cheaper, looks stronger :lol: And still works with 'burns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Arnold Posted July 26, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 2005 its weird, people always say the fatter one is stronger, but i cant see why it should be :lol: maybe because it resists twisting or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted July 26, 2005 Report Share Posted July 26, 2005 I believe the only difference is the pin width; the plates should be identical. The pins will have a difference of approx. 0.78 of a millimetre, so we're talking f**king tiny. 0.078cm difference. Not really much :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Booth Posted July 26, 2005 Report Share Posted July 26, 2005 In therory i think the thin version would be stronger. Think about when you snap a pencil, the longer the pencil is the easier it is to snap, the shorter it is the harder, i know where talking like mm here, but should still have an effect. Thinner gets my vote Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Arnold Posted July 26, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 2005 so, if the thin version contains less material and is probarbly stronger, why make the fat one? im very confuzzled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urpedigreechumdog Posted July 26, 2005 Report Share Posted July 26, 2005 According to the old tartybikes write up, they both had a breaking load of 13000 newtons. Fat and thin both the same strength, But i'm a cheapass so i bought the fat one which was a few quid cheaper :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted July 26, 2005 Report Share Posted July 26, 2005 You basically need more clearance if you're runnign a cassette between the chain plates and the mech's teeth. Therefore you need a thinner chain. BMXers have never had this problem, so they went for the wider gauge. Therefore, two versions. Technically, the load is shared over a longer pin so it's stronger if it's wider. But who knows? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Arnold Posted July 26, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 2005 You basically need more clearance if you're runnign a cassette between the chain plates and the mech's teeth. Therefore you need a thinner chain. BMXers have never had this problem, so they went for the wider gauge. Therefore, two versions. Technically, the load is shared over a longer pin so it's stronger if it's wider. But who knows? ← i get what ur saying about the mech and bmx thing, but its never the pins that snap in my experience, only the plates... ah well, this topic isnt really going anywhere, haha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted July 26, 2005 Report Share Posted July 26, 2005 True. However, with BMX chains you CAN make the plates thicker, whereas you can't on a 3/32 chain because they'll rape the other cassette sprockets :lol: However, the KMC has the same side plates, I believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.