Video

ASSEMBLY TIP; I recently installed a Wippermann Connex 9SE chain onto my electric fat bike. I had a little misunderstanding that I resolved once I fnally understood what the directions were attempting to say concerning what links should be at each end of the chain once you break it down to the correct length. The written directions say "make sure an inner link comprises one end of the chain and an outer link the other". What they didn't say was that the end with the outer link IS the Connex connector, therefore, the chain should have inners only at both ends- the Connex connector is the outer link that connects the two inners together. To add to my confusion was that the instructions disagreed with the pics shown. I HOPE THIS HELPS YOU. All I can say is install it for the 1st time when no one else is home so they don't hear your WTFs.

I just bought a Connex 9SE for my fat ebike. Granted, the bike does not have a mid drive motor and probably doesn't need a hard chain, but I bought it for reliability. The bike weighs in at 70lbs unloaded, and I'll be dammed if I'm gonna be out on the trail with a broken chain 14 miles from a road. I want this bike to be robust in every way.

give the chains to a rider, you will get more relevant result.

I'm curious about something. Is there any concern that if a chain is so incredibly strong, stiff and wear-resistant that it could actually cause the chain rings to wear earlier than if they were mated to a softer more "expendable" chain? I think I'd rather have a softer cheap chain replaced frequently if it meant the rest of my drivetrain might last longer. Maybe have the wrong thinking here though. Does anybody have any thoughts on this? Thank you.

I think you confused X1 and XX1 chain because XX1 lasted 3x longer than my PC1110 chain. The hard chrome chains are really tough. On price per mile, PC1110 is still one of the best.

If the same percent wear, i.e. 1%, represents the point of replacement, the idea is that is soon enough to avoid consequential wear to cogsets, regardless of chain brand, lube method, etc. Then the only concern is whether one promptly and diligently replaces chains at that 1% mark. Some chains may seem to shift better, but after that is makes sense to adjust cost with longevity, and avoid paying three times more for a chain lasting twice as long. Stainless is nice on MTB and foul weather commuters, as rust does happen.

I wonder that the cheap SO overtrumps the SB version. The charts on the website say that the overall performance of the SB is better than the SO version, escpecially when it comes to corrosion protection.

why didn't you test KMC DLC and YBN chains?

That's totally biased. Don't compare Srams 1110 but the 1170 or RED22. The 1110 costs a fifth of the Connex! You should only compare equally priced chains!

The video voice-over mentions having tested "all 11 speed chains in the market". Will the downloadable test chart (ETA?) include the results for the other chains that weren't shown in the video (eg. SRAM Red or Force 11s, or Campy Chorus, etc)?

I've happily fit Connex chains to my bikes since viewing the previous iteration of this video several years ago, and confirm that the chains last >2x as long as competitors at <2x the price: good value. BUT I've also suffered some bicycle weight consciousness recently, and paid handsomely for a titanium cogset among other parts. And by the time a single Connex chain had worn out, it took the whole cogset with it. Ouch! I expected that ti would wear faster than steel cogs, but not this fast. I wrote to the manufacturer, who tells me this is unprecedented, and asks which chain I used. I said Connex because it's extra long-wearing (hard). Manufacturer suggests that using a hard chain like this may accelerate cog wear, so maybe a false economy if pricey ti cogs involved? Still investigating.