CC-1, CC-2 and CC-3 may be easier to use, but the CC-4 is more accurate because it isolates roller wear. This is especially important for 11 speed chains because replacement is recommended at 0.5% wear. My CC-2 indicates 0.5% wear at just a few hundred miles! The CC-4 confirms it hasn't yet reached 0.5%. Also, confirmed with a plain old ruler.
Park did a sneak update to the CC 2 without renaming it. The numbers are painted white but more importantly, the two pins are thinner so they work with narrower 12 speed chains. I have an old and new model and the old won't fit inside the inner plates of a chain
I have the cc-3 bought around a decade ago and the quality of the cc-3 compared to the newer cc-3.2 I see here looks vastly superior. Shrinkflation is everywhere.
No. The roller wear does not result in chain stretch(wear). The roller can wear as much as they like and the distance between links won’t change. The distance between links is critical and the only real issue. That’s why “stretch” is not a bad description. Think about it. If a roller wears and moves out of place a nano metre, so do all the others…. In the same direction. No difference. It’s the pin and boss at the “inner link” that are critical. When they wear the distance between them changes. That’s why lubricant on the outside, between the links and the rollers is of little importance. The tiny area that the pin is bearing in the inner plates’ boss is where the wear is.
It definitely didn’t drop in all the way. It appears to have stopped right before the .5% line. I think the CC-4 is giving a different reading because it is a more accurate design. When you pinch between the first two points of contact that holds the hook shaped point tightly against the roller. The first three measure Pin/Bushing wear and Bushing/Roller wear. The CC-4 measures only Pin/Bushing wear. Pin/Bushing wear is the cause cause of the chain elongation. That cc-4 is making a better more accurate measurement.
@@holdentrout7193 yeah I see what you mean but either it is right and all 3 others are wrong, ie. cc4 reads that the chain is .5 worn whereas all the other 3 had it at least .75 worn and where 1.0 was on the scale it was worn that much.. so my point is you have 3 pointless tools or the cc4 is pointless.. because that chain looks worn but the cc4 says its still OK.. kinda defeats the purpose of measuring tools if they don't give true measurements..
@@rogercoalter6262 I think, unfortunately, by that approximation the first 3 tools are “pointless”. There’s a reason Park spent the time and money to develop the CC-4…it has improvement accuracy over the previous 3 iterations.
tbf replace can mean if you had a bunch of chains then replace with one that is still inside wear limits but technically not a new chain.. probably really comes down to language and interpretation of terminology.
They are all JUNK ! The Rohloff one is easier to use and more durable. The CC-1 and 2 with those weak pins, which got easily bent, were useless in a shop.
CC-1, CC-2 and CC-3 may be easier to use, but the CC-4 is more accurate because it isolates roller wear. This is especially important for 11 speed chains because replacement is recommended at 0.5% wear. My CC-2 indicates 0.5% wear at just a few hundred miles! The CC-4 confirms it hasn't yet reached 0.5%. Also, confirmed with a plain old ruler.
Incredibly helpful video, thank you!
Your videos have been very helpful to me. Thanks.
Thanks for reviewing those it realy helped me to pick right one.
Very good video - thanks for sharing.
Amazing demonstration
Thank you for the kind words!
I have a single speed KMC 510hx chain for a BMX bike. Would any of these checkers be appropriate to indicate chain wear?
Park did a sneak update to the CC 2 without renaming it. The numbers are painted white but more importantly, the two pins are thinner so they work with narrower 12 speed chains. I have an old and new model and the old won't fit inside the inner plates of a chain
Very interesting
Do all these still work with 12 speed? Or do you need something else?
Are the cc-4 and cc-3.2 made of steel or aluminium?
I have the cc-3 bought around a decade ago and the quality of the cc-3 compared to the newer cc-3.2 I see here looks vastly superior. Shrinkflation is everywhere.
No. The roller wear does not result in chain stretch(wear). The roller can wear as much as they like and the distance between links won’t change. The distance between links is critical and the only real issue. That’s why “stretch” is not a bad description. Think about it. If a roller wears and moves out of place a nano metre, so do all the others…. In the same direction. No difference. It’s the pin and boss at the “inner link” that are critical. When they wear the distance between them changes. That’s why lubricant on the outside, between the links and the rollers is of little importance. The tiny area that the pin is bearing in the inner plates’ boss is where the wear is.
and on pins
Good info and comparison on all their tools. thanks for the info... I found the CC1 on ebay. I like that one too. more accurate.
surely cc4 didn't drop in?? looks like gave a different reading to all the other 3 or am I missing something
It definitely didn’t drop in all the way. It appears to have stopped right before the .5% line. I think the CC-4 is giving a different reading because it is a more accurate design. When you pinch between the first two points of contact that holds the hook shaped point tightly against the roller. The first three measure Pin/Bushing wear and Bushing/Roller wear. The CC-4 measures only Pin/Bushing wear. Pin/Bushing wear is the cause cause of the chain elongation. That cc-4 is making a better more accurate measurement.
@@holdentrout7193 yeah I see what you mean but either it is right and all 3 others are wrong, ie. cc4 reads that the chain is .5 worn whereas all the other 3 had it at least .75 worn and where 1.0 was on the scale it was worn that much..
so my point is you have 3 pointless tools or the cc4 is pointless.. because that chain looks worn but the cc4 says its still OK.. kinda defeats the purpose of measuring tools if they don't give true measurements..
@@rogercoalter6262 I think, unfortunately, by that approximation the first 3 tools are “pointless”. There’s a reason Park spent the time and money to develop the CC-4…it has improvement accuracy over the previous 3 iterations.
LOL Chain stretch, Peter Sagan might stretch a chain, we just wear one out.
probably nobody can stretch it because last junk can hold 10000N
Surely, 'replace' and 'new chain' are the same thing?
Yes
@@ChrisEnockson Or, does it mean "That's a new chain you're checking, it's fine, don't replace it!"
tbf replace can mean if you had a bunch of chains then replace with one that is still inside wear limits but technically not a new chain..
probably really comes down to language and interpretation of terminology.
you car replace worn chain with less worn chain, i do that to keep gears teeth at same pitch
2:22 because new chain did not brake in
1:25 no,no ,no, most of wear happens on pins
They are all JUNK ! The Rohloff one is easier to use and more durable. The CC-1 and 2 with those weak pins, which got easily bent, were useless in a shop.