thanks for taking time to report your experience, it is always great to get real world use information to discuss. This one is tricky though as based on the test - it is difficult to support that there is any protection of any type occurring. Remember instead of the usual 400km stint in big ring - re lube, 200km small ring, re-lube - 400 km in big ring - to make the first 1000km block 1, as the chain was squeaking so badly towards then end of each 100km distance, i changed to re lube every 100km. So it had many re lubes just in block 1 (an entire 4oz's - in 1000km), and still it struggled badly to reach even 100km of running, and all up returned a wear rate similar to no lube. There can be differences in power (lower power = longer lasting, lower wear), And perhaps there is difference with your chain vs an ultegra 11spd. Re no wear on park tool - remember they are a go / no go tool - so by the time it drops in - thats 100% worn. Not dropping in doesnt = 0% wear. but all up - thats a remarkable result for you on that lubricant. only other think i can think of is potentially batching issue / differences - but the FL wax on test here was literally about as effective as taking a wee on your chain. Most other comment experiences i think have been more in line with the test result - so at the moment i am puzzled with your excellent result, but very pleased you didnt have a worn drivetrain from this product!

maybe, its a wild sentence - but the fact they have brought out a tool that goes to 0.8, when 0.5% has been the recommended for so long, for good reason - it points to them taking a completely different approach which is not good. however i am working to try to get the right contact at sram to discuss.

Honestly that would be amazing. But currently that is about 1000 levels of YT creator above where i have the time & skills to do. I am just an everyday cyclist focusing in this area with ZFC as a hobby business. If i can get more time and skills over time then some better presentation skills would be great, but oh so many other YT channels, they have real creators on them (many with a whole team for scripting, filming, editing and effects). What i have is typically a 1 to 2hr recording block on a friday as well as a lack of numerous skills. My apologies.

not it certainly isnt abrasive as such, however it is possible it does not have the absolute outright speed of some other surface treatments, and MAY be part of why sram chains typically test on the slower end of the scale in ceramic speeds efficiency testing of chains.

yes and also MOST cyclists also lift or at least lower their pedalling load when shifting. Actual wear pressure on shift ramps themselves i expect is so low as to not be any factor at all vs simply wearing teeth period (which in itself will wear the shift ramps, and so i think shift ramp wear is being conflated with just outright teeth wear).

>3000km on a cheap Microshift CS-H083 12-42T cassette and maybe 90% of of the ED Black coating on the ramps is still there. It's on a road bike so it doesn't see mud. Nearly all the missing coating is within 1mm of the outer edge of the cog ( more near the teeth tips ). Each ramp has a missing patch of about 5mm2 at the bottom of the valley between teeth pointing rearward. There are several ramps on the largest cogs so wear will be spread between them. Chain wax may collect on the ramps protecting them ? The surface of mine seemed slippery and polished. I currently only immersive wax.

@@dawn_rider nice, yes i think many cheap cassettes - being steel - would have greater wear resistance than a number of high end cassettes - ie dura ace - with alloy cogs.

I havent yet had any real look into tools that attempt to measure chain ring wear. Chain ring tooth profiles from one brand to another simply vary so much i am just skeptical how well they could work. So absolute end of life measurements would be very chain ring model dependent. Best ways to get best lifespan from chainrings (and cassette) is to run multiple chains on rotation as you basically guarantee to get those 2 or even 3 chains through a set as everything wears together and keeps mesh in a happy place. There are limits (ie likely hardchrome chains - 2 will be your max rotation before chainring wear on mtb would outstrip chain wear by enough that even with chains not worn, chain ring wear would be and issue, and possibly any alloy cogs on a cassette - for non hardchrome chains 3 chains will likely be the practical limit for mtb rings. Most road chainrings should see out 2 x 2 chains on rotation to 0.5 or a little under or even 2 x 3 if non hard chrome). I would simply go that path vs trying to faff with actually measuring chain ring wear as this would be very approximate, and still not help if next new chain runs rough

yep. For mtb it is VERY common that the chainring will not survive past one chain, even to 0.5%. They are often varying levels of hardness re aluminium alloy - ranging from pretty durable to really not. One fairly small ring doing all the work - its a tough gig. Cassette varies a lot. Srams x01 / xx1 eagle - the 11 smallest cogs are tool steel and extremely hard wear. If you mostly keep it out of the alloy 50/52 cog - the cassettes will typically have no issue seeing out even the super long lasting x01 /xx1 chains - at least my oldest xx1 cassette the steel cogs still measured basically new. GX is a lower steel grade, aftermarket cassettes are also typically much faster wearing than the tool steel used on srams x01 /xx1 level. T-type is going to be interesting, seeking more info on the cassette material

yes that seems to be the issue - its not that their cassettes / rings are fast wearing - in fact overall we believe they are on the hardier side of things as well, it is just that the hardchrome treatment they use on higher level 12spd chains is incredibly wear resistant, it is way ahead of other chains on the market regarding wear durability. This is basically bringing up this new issue that by the time their chains are reaching the normal 0.5% wear mark - it can be unlikely a new chain will go onto existing components without issues. And so they are basically say look dont risk that, push them out to 0.8%, and then replace everything. So if they want to explicitly say that - thats fine, and we can discuss the pro's and cons of srams vs others based on that. but what you cant say is that replacing chains early "causes premature wear" to cassettes and chain rings. They are saying this to avoid people replacing chains earlier than their own recommended 0.8%, and then having mesh / running rough issues. So basically putting out a knowingly very false statement, as explaining the actual situation is a little too messy for them

@@zerofrictioncycling992 Damn that is a complete mess. WTF indeed!

Yet there are a bunch of interesting questions after. Maybe just not your preferred way to get this type of content. I learned a few things along the way, so worth it for me.

CS have tested one of the t-types from memory and it was same as red, but they havent tested a variety of T-Type yet to see if any weird things going on at different chain levels, nor the new red e1. Not sure when / if they will get to, they have been building and calibrating a very fancy new test machine. nearly done, but im not sure what the managment have backed up the test man there to do before he can start doing curiosity tests like this again. For the moment, still assume all flat top are on the slower side of chain efficiency, and but hardchrome are the best training chains, racers should look to the ybn sla mk 12 as race chains which is lightning fast, but will have much lower wear life vs hard chrome

its not a typo - it is clear why they are saying what they are saying (well, at least i am 99.999% certain it is what i have covered here) - however for sure i am trying to get the right contact, i have someone working on that for me, and will update how this all goes.

I get what your saying, but - in reality the odds on them planning and executing such would be nil. Remember they are competing at the world level, they their high end products to compete at the world level - so chains and drivetrain components will be designed to run perfectly when new. Due to efficiency reasons, at high level racing chains are changed very frequently, and so a WT riders cassette and chainrings will see many new chains in a season, whilst remaining basically not affected by wear. SRAM nor anyone else in cycling would try to tolerance parts such that initially they dont run as well new as when they are X thousand kms old. That would be nuts.

@@zerofrictioncycling992 okay but lots of things have a brake in period. like brakepads, some firearms, pedals. It isnt X thousand kms unless X << 1. You are probably right and maybe its a typo, but some times things are designed in such a way that it works best in its typical configuration. The SR71s fuel tanks leaked when on the ground since it was designed for cruising at mach speed. idk not a chain engineer.

@@bermchasin yes for sure - and for sure there is a break in period with chains too - it is just that we are talking (depending on brand and model) 30 mins to a few hours. So you could almost think of it similar to bedding in new pads (except more steps to do it properly). But it is a rather minute thing overall, and certainly not something that can account for srams information which is something very different.

it is likely just the material that the chainrings are made of. Like cassettes there is huge variance in brands / models chain rings hardness against wear, and some are simply very soft and do not hold up well at all, whereas others if people are replacing chains at 0.5 will likely have no hope wearing out rings for however long they keep that bike

@@zerofrictioncycling992 Oh, okay, I misunderstood. I thought you’d been saying chainrings and cogs will only wear out this soon if chains are run beyond the .5 wear mark or develop excessive lateral wear before going beyond .5 elongation wear.

@@zerofrictioncycling992 BTW it would be really helpful to get your take on how to use the Abbey LL tool for measuring lateral wear. My results vary drastically depending on whether I do it as shown in Abbey’s KZfaq video or as shown in your video (applying pressure to the extended part of the chain).

@@williambracken9339 yes true that - using on length of chain just running past is easier to exert a lot more leverage, the way i did there i simply pressed hard, and without pressure it springs back up to about measure 3 - but yes will confirm for sure

you can 3d print whatever you want.

@@bermchasin Except, perhaps, guns?

Patent pending status implies that infringement could (retroactively) trigger legal action once the patent is granted. So you should view it as "patented", So it would probably depend on what you mean by "uploading" if you made it public in a way it could be traced to you and/or easily commissioned by others (something like Shapeways for example) then potentially there could be in trouble. However, sending it off privately to a 3D printer for a one-off, for personal use would likely to go unnoticed. If you were to publish say a design for a tool that effectively does the same thing but, maybe, measures over more links, or has a pin in the middle and has marks rather than holes around the outside on a semicircular plate (yeah i've been thinking about this too) it would be hard for them to prove infringement (but maybe not impossible).

They may not be able to. Different materials. Maybe a RED stainless cassette doesn't accept that coating

extra mfg cost and also largely a lot of technical challenges. Ie pins on chain are cut from a rod, so an entire rod is much more easily plated, as are the steel sheets for link plates etc. The cassettes are cut from billet, so would need to be plated after cutting, and will be a different metal vs chain steel. And it still may not really work as once a chain becomes more and more elongation worn, it really needs to eat out the teeth to suit that length or it will run very badly on the cogs / rings.

That my thought, as well

Me too, first thing I thought

But is saves two grams!!! LOL!

continual cross chains MAY wear teeth thinner over time, which MAY wear ramps - but it is still unlikely. The shift ramp teeth have less material there, deliberately. They are designed to allow the chain to move without being caught up trying to get off a tooth. So they generally either will not be touching the side of plate links on chain line angles like non shift ramp teeth are, or they are doing so under much less load. As such they just experience a lot less wear pressure than non shift ramp teeth. They will wear like other teeth from the more normal face wear before ramps are worn, in almost all cases i believe.

Higher power in a cycling context is achieved through higher torque.

yes correct, but as mostly people cycle in a relatively similar ballpark cadence of say 70 to 90, and they know what power numbers mean but not torque - it is just easier to explain via terms most understand well

@@zerofrictioncycling992 Understood 👍 I do recall a few times in the past when I had a skipping chain. Going to lower gears was able to mitigate it a little bit so I always assumed this to be the case. Good to know it's legit and not just my imagination.

yep part of that can be the chainring material - quite a lot of mtb chainrings are aluminium, and often not the harder grades, and so can be very soft wearing. The roller can settle in well with very little movement and thus were, whilst in mud conditions the plates are sliding down sides of teeth with abrasive mud for lubricant - and even though the load is still mild on high chain line angles, soft rings + lots of wear interactions with abrasive particles for lubricant - exactly what you have experienced happens

If the chain pitch was too short on a new chain, it would run as badly as worn chain straight out of the box.

​@@peglor yeah but sram axs road chain really are slightly shorter than sram transmission out of the box. Something like 0.1%

@@TheAntoine191 Very interesting if they're doing that. I don't use those products, so can't check for myself. Since I ride off road in mud all year round, waxed chains are useless, and I'd be replacing my chain every 500 miles based on a chain checker, so I get 3 or 4 times that by letting everything wear out together (And not buying overpriced SRAM cassettes, so the overall replacement cost comes in less than buying multiple chains and way less if you value your time as replacing chains takes time too). I've never had skipping under power and this is with running chains till the rollers are just short of wearing off the chain - they do get noisier though. A weird one I've never seen on any other chain before is that Shimano 12 speed chains seem to wear unevenly between the outside and inside chain plates, so the chain develops a side to side wave when under load.

@@peglor @hoyhoy42 below did notice something like a bit like that.

Well, the sram chains are half inch pitch, so my sram comments kinda fit. Rather surprisingly now that i have a t-type cassette and thus sram flat top chain, the tip to tip measure is still 9.5mm despite the oversize rollers of flat top chain. I had always believed the tooth profile to be slightly larger to accommodate the oversize rollers. They are not. As such, due to oversize rollers but not a bigger tooth profile, i would expect sram chains to begin eating into teeth material earlier than non flat top systems. So there is less tolerance, not more.

I'm thinking maybe the chrome coating makes things a bit too tight in there when brand new and when it's worn a bit they fit better. I've noticed on pro bikes in the TdF the Sram chains have noticeably wear/burnishing marks on the chains even though they are 'brand new.' I noticed this on the Cervelos of Visma, the burnishing is on the outer plate, usually on the 'front' of the link (although sometimes on the rear link) indicating the link is contacting the next over cog in the cassette on the outside.

no that for sure isnt it, the way chains run over teeth it doesnt matter if one surgically sharpened the plates (it would just make it more exciting to do a re wax of fix a rear flat :)) New chains CANNOT prematurely wear cassette / chain rings, they simply may not mesh well if those parts are showing enough wear - so i know what they are trying to do, i just wish they would not attempt to achieve by putting out knowingly false information - i really cant abide that.

They've become so long that are unwatchable for me. This could have been 5 mins long.

@@matteo.ceriotti yes apologies matteo - i dont think i will be able to change much, i for sure wont suit a lot of peeps. If you need any specific info to help re drivetrain / chains we have a lot covered on the zfc website

yes a co host overall would be great, but ZFC is rather tiny, and at the moment i am pretty flat out keeping up each week and then quickly doing a vid to cover some latest topics - and i just try to smash one out when i can get a spot on a friday. For some future topics it would be great though, or to interview some peeps if i can. Cant promise it will happen, but you are correct, it would be more engaging for most i think if i could.

that is very interesting info, that is a lot of chains to a cassette! Your experience sure shows srams sentences to be rather incorrect :)

In what sentence / what part do you mean?

Replace the word "early" with "late" in the sentence that made your brain explode. Never underestimate the ability of a bored/tired person to make a mistake when mindlessly adding knowledgebase additions. It has to be considered, and waiting till you had heard back from Sram first would have confirmed if that was the case. That's why journalists try to get a response before publishing, because if it's a mistake it's not a story worth 20 minutes of postulation and exasperation. Further, all this unsubstantiated, wandering hypothesizing, if based on a simple mistake, can only serve to breed rumours that will last for time immemorial on forums. As we all know, drama gets more views than retractions/corrections.

@@MrKipperfish Understand - i do have some backing information from others that it most definitely is not a typo due to the reasons explained in the vid. and it is not always easy to get the right person at such large mfg - sometimes opening up the chat publicly helps in that regards. And also remember that by all logic and standards re chain replacement in the last decade, going past 0.5% is too late. And it will be too late to get a new chain onto existing parts with sram as well. Going to 0.8 will guarantee you need new cassette and likely rings as well. Again in line with what has been put forwards in this video. if their tool was 0.5%, i would be inclined to agree with the possibility it may be typo. Knowing what just simply happens when you run a chain to 0.8% - whilst of course i may be wrong, but it seems clear what the intention of this sentence is aimed to prevent But if i am wrong - you will find that update that is for certain!

i did pretty close too, you can also simply feel when you are putting a lot of pressure on and that you have easily assessed the lateral wear amount.

I don’t think so as even their chain checker tool is a go/no-go gauge which measures 0.8% wear, meaning an engineer made it so. Either an engineer who doesn’t know what they are doing or an engineer who was forced by the management to do it. Not sure which option is worse…

@@viljamip regardless; the 0.8% marker does not change replacing "early" with "late" making perfect sense.

sadly no, its an entire sentence that is stating something clearly, something that is simply knowingly false. We can see why they are doing it, but they need to work it so they are being honest about the situation, even if that takes a couple more sentences.

@@viljamip PS vijamp thankyou so much for being the one to highlight - my apologies i thought i saw it was dawnrider. Many thanks for the heads up on this one!

You'r saying they don't make spare batteries for their electric drivetrains?

​@@ABHI-dl4dc for the Wireless blips

The blips' thing is kind of despicable, both from a consumer and environmental point of view. Especially since it's just a CR1632, it took me about 15 mins to crack one open, replace the cell and reseal with adhesive backed shrink tube, it's not even soldered in. There is zero reason I can see why the units couldn't be 4 small screws and a gasket rather than welded shut. I thought it was maybe to stop/discourage you from effectively building an AXS drivetrain around just the blips (which is understandable from SRAM's POV), but apparently that was blocked in software at the time of their release anyway and only became an option later.

What a ridiculous statement from still another of the multitude of SRAM haters that flock to this channel.

@@petersouthernboy6327 Are you saying it's NOT true that you can't (officially) replace the batteries in blips? Or that they have NOT tied the life of what should be a non-consumable part (power meter) to a consumable one (the chain rings) on RED? Or are you saying it's not true that pivot pin wear is a known issue with SRAM rear mechs, and although they could be replaceable and made cheaply available (and thanks to after market manufacturers in fact are) SRAM's position is that you need to replace the whole mech? I mean, the OP could be wrong about SRAM's business model, and it all could be just happenstance that occurred in the pursuit of a better system/product (Apple Mac's official stance that was basically laughed at in court BTW), but it's hardly a "ridiculous" hypothesis.

Thanks, glad to see a video about this anyway. And thanks for validating my comment.

thanks yes i made a comment on on previous one to thank, and thanks also for letting me know. you are both awesome :)

@@zerofrictioncycling992@dawn_rider makes awesome comments and actually gives me ideas for future videos.

@@vitalbikechains You've got me worried now 🤔 I do get things wrong , so whatever I've started , keep the budget low and don't let it take over your life !

I’m running the same Red chain on my Rival AXS Gravel Race bike for the second season now. Still almost like new, wears very slowly. I don’t wax it but I keep it clean and lubed.

On Red AXS with three rotating chains, each about 3000 mile wear and all at 0.01 chain wear according to the digital park tool checker. I submerge the chains in boiling water, then hot wax with Silca after 200 or so miles, never used drip lube. I think these chains will outlive me the way it's going now ...

@@tobiasbouma4071 on Red, the inner links and rollers are hard chrome plated. The chain is a bit stiff at first - but once it gets burnished in, it’s the longest lasting chain I’ve ever owned. I’ve got one on my Giant Revolt that I’ve been racing and training on for two seasons now.

Never heard that SRAM front derailleurs are crap to adjust?? Rgr

@@borano2031 not a single problem with my SRAM AXS front derailleur. None. Two seasons of racing and training, four sets of tires - about to be five.

what article? You mean my video? if not, pls let me know why not so i can try do better

@@zerofrictioncycling992 That quote is referring to the SRAM webpage you are talking about.

Thanks Phillip, and yes input like yours is exactly what i was looking for and asking for - i do wish to get info that supports the other side, as yes correct my own experience is not going to be as broad as the worlds mechanics. But yes for sure - i can say from my own personal experience - that replacing chains post a long long life thanks to waxing , replacing chain by 0.5% so i do not eat into cassette or chainring teeth - the next new chain - everything is perfect. Simply perfect. On my oldest road bike i did replace the big ring finally after 50,000km. it had seen 3 chains to an average of 5000km on wet lube to 0.5%, 4th chain was just under 15,000km on msw, 5th chain same, 6th chain on and shifting still perfect. I only changed as i wanted to try a 54t pyramid cycle design chain ring. Similar re cassette albeit dura ace cassettes would still only last for one chain due to soft wearing alloy for largest 6 cogs, moving to ultegra - 2 chains at 15k each no probs, and second chain and second 15k - shifting perfect to 30,000km. Same with replacing long term mtb chain on main training mtb, and i only just replaced my old 11spd mechanical drivetrain on my cx gravel bike (it was 3 years on one bike, 3 years on aspero - and again - cassette etc barely any wear - just 11spd mechanical with gear range pushed - i upgraded race mtb to T-Type, so i moved the xx1 from that to aspero to go 12spd and 10 to 50t vs 11 to 42. But the groupset itself after 6yrs of gravel and cx racing and training, and i replace chains a bit more frequently on that bike as full mudder cx races really do a number on chains - again - shifting with next new chain - on no bike ever if the cassette teeth or chain ring teeth have not been worn, i have not been able to detect at all any degradation in shifting vs 1st chain when it is brand new. And when i had the work shop going focussed just on drivetrain - i had never had a customer with a new chain on existing cassette or chain rings find that shifting was not where it should be or how they ever remembered it being. So the only evidence i have seen so far re when one needs to replace cassette, its when the teeth are simply worn, and same re chain ring. Prior to brad / your info - i have never heard of a case where the teeth are not worn, but the shift ramps. The amount of wear / friction that would wear out shift ramps, would wear teeth such that he cassette / rings would need replacing anyway due to that wear. It is something i have checked with other mechanic friends since, and it is also something they had never considered nor heard of in their time in LBS, which is extensive decades. If teeth are worn - replace. If teeth are not worn, new chain fine, shifting perfect again. So for sure its a new take. So to clarify, you are confirming in your experience that cassette / chain ring teeth can be not very worn and as such accept a new chain without issue, but shifting with that new chain will be compromised due to wear of shift ramps? if yes - is that after just one chain so it happens on next chain? Do you have an idea as to what would cause such wear to shift ramps if the teeth themselves are not worn? Do you have an idea as to why this concern is generally not common, and (in my view...) thus the vast majority of cyclists - including myself, can go through multiple chains on same components retaining perfect shifting, whilst others have worn shift ramps in one chain? Taking into account as well for my gravel ./ cx and main training mtb - they are seeing a lot of dust and mud, a lot of crap is always running in with chain and cassette teeth etc for a long time over the years - but next new chain - things are perfect. Trying to understand what could be happening is very interesting to me.

Ah not really. For main hub - the NDS bearing is pretty exposed, but the DS main hub bearing is covered by the FH. The FH outer bearing is similarly exposed as per the NDS main hub bearing. Lifespan of main hub vs freehub - a bunch of factors come into play - such as stance of the main hub bearings - some hubs are narrower stance so higher lateral load, some hubs are wider stance. Bearing size is also a big impact - if its 6802 bearings in a rear wheel main hub taking load of a heavy rider - they dont last for peanuts unless very high quality - and even then, its undersized. If its 6903 bearings of decent quality and in a well designed hub - they can go and go and go - especially if maintained. Freehub bearings in my experience (my own bikes and customer) typically go before main hub (again, not always) as A) they are typically smaller than many main hub bearings - often 6802, or even 6702. If they are 6803 they often fair much better. But 6802 - its just as small bearing with thin races and typically not amazing lifespan. and then b) the hub & freehub design will also dictate how the load is driven into the bearings. it is not uncommon for a freehub to for instance always have the inner (and more protected from elements) bearing go before the outer - just the way its loaded up a bit laterally all the time. Others, the outer goes easily and the inner is fine. Some FH the inner bearing is mounted right on the edge of the FH, others it is mounted much more inboard and not easily serviced as there is a faffy c-clip to remove and get bearing out etc etc. it is not uncommon for FH bearings to be pretty toast by 10 to 15k, whilst main hub go 20 to 30k or more. For sure quite a number of hubs do have main hub and FH bearings of same size, this is more common with smaller lighter hubs, where the main hub shell is kept minimal for weight - ie any hubs like DT180. But many other hubs do spec larger bearings in the main hub vs FH, and even one bearing size up adds a pretty large amount to the bearings service life. So yep for sure overall your experience is not incorrect - just overall experiences will vary, and that on balance from what i have seen FH on average do tend to have smaller cartridge bearings than main hubs, and do tend to give out earlier. And they are often not checked. It is a common misconception that FH bearings dont matter much as they only come into play when rolling, when in fact the opposite is true and they dont rotate when one is not pedalling, but they take all ones pedalling load so if they are not going great, they are responsible for eating up a bit of pedalling power. FH bearings not going great have caught many a local racer out thats for sure as they just dont think about them or check them or have them checked during services.

@@zerofrictioncycling992 Thanks Adam for the thorough explanation (as per usual!). Indeed, I was getting confused about bearing names vs locations. Indeed, it has always been the "outer" two cartridge bearings on my rear wheels that have died early, which I was incorrectly naming (died = dry, gritty, and obvious lateral play in the wheel). As you suggested, that might be due to hub design, though we are talking about my gravel and commuter bikes, so they see a lot of dirt and wet weather riding! And you are spot on about bearing size. The only wheel bearings that I've had to replace with any frequency have been of the 6802 or 6902 variety (5mm wide and small bearings) on both front and rear hubs. I have two rear wheels that each have 4 of these smaller bearings -- a tradeoff of weight vs service life, I am sure. Again, this is great information and I have learned quite a lot from your post.

Yeah for sure if one is nice and handy with a ruler / vernier - they dont need a chain checker. But for the masses - they really need something that is very quick and easy to use to check multiple spans of chain in about 30 secs. I can tell you if i gave digital calipers to 10 cyclists and asked for a chain wear measure, i would get at least 8 different results from its new to it should be replaced and everything in between. And when it takes some concentration and effort to do, checking is just often kicked down the road too much, and so by the time they do, they are caught out. A good drop in / or in this case - place on.. checker where it is simple and easy to do in a jiffy - they get used all the time - and that is the most important bit. Aussie retail is looking like $88, so will be a tool for the discerning - but - it isnt overpriced for the quality one gets with abbey - they are true to their slogan of precision is their religion. it will be a lovely tool for anyones workshop that will last however many generations of cyclists in the family come along, and since it is unlikely chains will move from 1/2 inch pitch standard anytime soon - it will be of use for..... a long long time.