Used chains anyone?

Agreed on the wierdness, but then again, the engineering people are the ones that design and then determine. It might be rated for less, but as AModelCat points out it may be that the chain at that size and composition might make it weaker in that size.

 

I wish my chains were still pretty and gold. Now they are rusty and moldy but with freshly modified slip hooks and color coded by length.

 

Yeah, mine ended up looking like that, too, but they were still 'legally' marked, just as yours are.

 

I COULD buy that explanation, except that its ONLY 5/16, look at 1/4", 10% stronger in g80 than g70.

Its as if 5/16 is magical, the ONLY one thats stronger in g70 than g80, thats just not how material strengths work at all.

 

Alas, I'm not the engineer that may have determined that, or the publisher, public or private, that screwed the pooch and maybe transposed those values, I'm just suggesting possible reasons, absurd or not. As absurd as that variation that you noticed. But now..::sigh:: I may find myself sleepless and emailing people to find out what kind of tomfoolery caused such an anomaly like that in a Federal Chart.

 

I looked up another chart from one of the manufacturers, same odd variation.

 

Best im coming up with so far is PERHAPS long link *might* be stronger and 5/16 is more or less the only real use it gets, so fmcsa assumes all 5/16 is that.

im not trying to be combative or anything, its just weird as hell for them to publish a table like that

 

Yeah, I did too, but for that reason that maybe the Fed was mistaken, but we know that couldn't be, so maybe the manufacturer just copied the feds.

 

I understand you're not being combative, but alas, at the moment, I have no reasonable explanation, so all my hair brained one's will have to do.

 

As a kid I recall seeing dad cut and weld links. Guess that was before all this rating bs.