The 3/16" chains are chosen for impacts, but not visual ones.
That is, they are meant for situations in which you expect and/or intend for your chain to come into contact with solid objects that are not part of the bicycle.
So their orginal intent in the BMX world was not really for racing. Rather, these ultra-wide chains are meant for "grinding" and related tricks in which the chain is likely to come in contact with a railing or the cove edge of a ramp.
I imagine that on Single Speeds you're expected to be dragging the chain on all sorts of boulders, roots and logs. (Probably on your own legs, too, but that's another story...)
So unless you're about to jump your Colnago track bike off the
side of an empty swimming pool, I seriously doubt the need for
3/16" chains by anyone on the CR list.
Cheers,
Fred Rednor - Arlington, Virginia (USA)
> Mark Stonich wrote <but I snip to leave only one of his
> interesting points>:
>
> [relative to 3/32 and/or 1/8" chains] There must be some cost
> in strength though as 3/16" is coming back in vogue for BMX
> and modern Single Speed.
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> May I suggest that this might be a fashion, not driven by
> serious analysis? In 4+ decades, I've rarely broken a 3/32
> chain (and one of those times was riding an on-topic triplet
> with a pretty strong team, and required missing a shift,
> too). Besides, one wonders if the side plates are thicker or
> stronger on the new 3/16" chains. Or do they claim that
> better bearing surfaces give enough advantage to overcome the
> certain increase in weight? My sense is that these are
> chosen primarily for visual impact, but I'd be happy to be
> proven wrong - off-list, of course, unless the argument is
> on-topic. :-)
>
> harvey sachs
> mcLean va.
>
> _______________________________________________
>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com