I'm replacing chains on a number of bicycles, and trying to decide what chains to purchase. I'm a fan of Sram's master links, so I'm comparing the Sram PC-971 to the PC-991. The PC-991 is considerably more expensive, but it seems like the lighter weight chain would make a significant difference in pedaling performance, because of the angular momentum involved. Are my instincts correct, or is this just a sales gimmick on Sram's part?

Also, I've seen some reviews indicating that the hollow-link chains are prone to breakage -- is this something I should be concerned about?

  • how does Shimano's 9 speed chains compare with PC-951? If I have anything to believe to Wiggle's reviews, PC 951 has a head over the S, not sure though comments?
    – user652
    Commented Feb 11, 2011 at 21:31
  • Well, shimano chains don't have a master link, so if you want to take it off, you've got to use a chain tool. I've been told that every time you use a chain tool, you increase the risk of failure. Between that and the convenience of sram's master links, I've come to prefer sram chains.
    – Benson
    Commented Feb 11, 2011 at 23:09
  • Any chain can use a master link, its just that Shimano ones don't come with a master link. You can buy them separately though.
    – Criggie
    Commented Dec 2, 2017 at 19:03

2 Answers 2


I'm no racer so I'm probably speaking from a very different point of view than you were interested in. I have used Sram 9-speed chains for years on my touring/commuting bicycles. I have used the 971, 981, and 991 and haven't been able to see any difference in performance or longevity, either. With my wet-weather commuting here in the Seattle area where it's pretty nearly wet every day from October through March, and then there's plenty of rain in April and May, too, I have been able to wear out chains and cassettes very quickly.

I'm not a mountain biker--or at least not an avid one--so I have never really hammered the chains in the muck but I have never had one of their chains break. I've just managed to wear them out over time.

I do greatly appreciate the master link because it makes it easy to take the chain off the bike and put it back on again. Before I switched to a bike with a Rohloff internally geared hub for my commuting, I would keep two chains in rotation on my bike and take one off, soak it in cleaner, and let it dry while I put the other clean chain on my bike.

  • Thank you, the fact that you've used all three models and haven't been able to tell the difference means a lot. I'm a mountain biker and have done a little road racing, but not a lot. I've done a fair bit of touring lately, too. Based on your advice, and advice from folks on twitter, I'm inclined to go with the 971, since it's so inexpensive. :-)
    – Benson
    Commented Feb 7, 2011 at 20:27

I've not done the maths, but angular momentum is proportional to the radius of the circle. So those big wheels benefit a lot from mass reduction, but the relatively small turn around your chainring much less so.

Overall I'd think that the chain mass can largely be considered just another part - if it's much cheaper per gram to save weight there than your saddle or bars go for it, otherwise your money may be better spent elsewhere, especially as the chain is a consumable part.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.