Answers.Body: <p><strong>TL;DR</strong> (or <em>Executive Summary</em>, if you like): <strong>Between 620 and 1420 gram</strong>s of mass (6.2 - 14.2 Newtons of force), depending on the pieces and their age.</p>
  <h2><strong>Long version</strong></h2>
  <p>So I decided to give this a shot and tried to measure the tensile strength of the technic chain links by building a homemade LEGO tensile tester machine and using <a href="https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=3711#T=C" rel="nofollow noreferrer">chain link pieces</a> from a new copy of <a href="https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?S=42107-1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">42107: Ducati Panigale V4 R</a> for the simple chain and <a href="https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?S=42148-1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">42148: Snow Groomer</a> for the <a href="https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=3873#T=C" rel="nofollow noreferrer">tread elements</a> - both received as part of <a href="https://bricks.meta.stackexchange.com/q/604/3631">the 2023 Q2 Activity Support initiative</a>.</p>
  <p>For the first attempt, I recreated the frame from <a href="https://bricks.stackexchange.com/questions/9844/lego-train-magnet-strength/13050#13050">my similar project with the train magnets</a>, but a lot sturdier, as the chain links are obviously stronger than the magnets. The chain links were attached to the frame and the variable weight basket using gardening wire:</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/Cd0bY.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/Cd0bY.jpg" alt="wire loops attached to chain link pieces" /></a></p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/6paEK.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/6paEK.jpg" alt="Brick-built frame with an empty basket hanging on the chain with the wire loops" /></a>
  <sup><sub>(pay no attention to the unfinished lower arches, they turned out to be totally unnecessary and I forgot to remove the partially built and still unconnected one before taking the photo)</sup></sub></p>
  <p>Then I added batteries to the basket until the chain broke and measured the weight of the basket as it was at the moment...:</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/1WtZ4.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/1WtZ4.jpg" alt="Photo of the basket full of batteries resting on a kitchen scale, weighing at 800 grams" /></a></p>
  <p>... at least, that was the plan. Sadly the basket was not heavy enough to break the chain even when filled to the brim and with additional batteries piled on the top. So a rework was necessary to accommodate a larger weight.</p>
  <p>The next iteration included a 1.5-liter plastic bottle as the container for the variable weight, attached by the same wire loop to the chain link piece:</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/FT1uY.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/FT1uY.jpg" alt="Plastic bottle hanging on a long chain from the frame, which is raised onto a piece of furniture and some empty boxes" /></a></p>
  <p>But with this approach, the measured breaking force would refer to the weakest of all the link pairs in the chain - while that could be an interesting measurement as well, I was mainly focused on one individual piece. Another rework resulted in the following contraption:</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/9U9Ez.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/9U9Ez.jpg" alt="no frame, just a flat beam resting on the furniture and the boxes, with the loop attached to the middle" /></a></p>
  <p>In this closeup, the chain attachment is visible along with the funnel used to fill the bottle gradually:
  <a href="https://i.sstatic.net/FU3Sb.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/FU3Sb.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
  <p>Using this setup the first real values were successfully acquired by filling the bottle until the chain broke, taking note of the weight displayed by the kitchen scale, replacing the link in the broken half, emptying the bottle and starting anew: (all values in grams)</p>
  <ul>
  <li>940</li>
  <li>940</li>
  <li>940</li>
  <li>860</li>
  <li>980</li>
  <li>920</li>
  <li>800</li>
  <li>910</li>
  <li>870</li>
  <li>870</li>
  <li>860</li>
  <li>710</li>
  </ul>
  <p>If you noticed something, congratulations - I didn't, at least not at this point. So I turned to the sidequest: checking if the tracked link variant is measurably different.</p>
  <p>Since those links are a lot wider, the attachment to the beam needed to be reworked again in order to access the chain for reattaching it after each breakage:</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/hApO4.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/hApO4.jpg" alt="a lot simpler attachment using a fixed pin and returning to the simple wire loop" /></a></p>
  <p>This setup has rendered the following measurements:</p>
  <ul>
  <li>620</li>
  <li>750</li>
  </ul>
  <p>At this point I realized my mistake: after every breakage, I replaced the center piece of the three-link chain, that wasn't attached to the wire loops. But the end pieces were the same since the beginning, and thus were subjected to the wear and fatigue from countless measurements and failed tests. Their interfaces began to wear down, as it is (at least in hindsight) obvious from the first published data sequence, whose elements do indeed show a steadily declining trend:</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/xLwJ3.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/xLwJ3.png" alt="All measurements plotted along with their trend line showing a decline" /></a></p>
  <p>So for the final rework, the wire loops became a lot simpler and messier, to facilitate the quick exchange of both participating links (only two this time!) against new ones.</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/Ukxbh.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/Ukxbh.jpg" alt="The final setup, where only two chain/tread links (and thus one interface destined to break) are included in the measurement" /></a></p>
  <p>Using two brand-new link pieces for all the following measurements, these data were gathered with the simple pieces:</p>
  <ul>
  <li>1180</li>
  <li>1150</li>
  <li>1100</li>
  <li>1290</li>
  <li>1080</li>
  </ul>
  <p>And with the track pieces:</p>
  <ul>
  <li>1280</li>
  <li>1420</li>
  <li>1360</li>
  <li>1400</li>
  <li>1350</li>
  </ul>
  <p>In conclusion, the tracked pieces are on average really a bit stronger than the simple ones (1362 grams vs. 1160, for a difference of ~15%), but both lose a lot of their strength (up to half of the new value!) when repeatedly forced to their breaking point. Even though there is no visible deterioration and the tests certainly haven't led to any destructive failures (apart from a few drops of spilled water).</p>
  <h2>Notes</h2>
  <p>The potential difference in strength resulting from turning the links &quot;inside out&quot; as recommended by AaronD in the comments became irrelevant by the test setup which uses a straight stretch of chain. It could be interesting once the chain is wrapped around a gear, but here I tried to get the cleanest measurement with the least amount of variables.</p>
  <p>The kitchen scale used still is only accurate to about ~10 grams.</p>
  <p>In the end, only 5-5 measurements were made with each link type using the final testing protocol - more measurements could refine the average and might introduce new extremes.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2023-09-25T00:46:09.200Z
Answers.Text: This is great! Thanks for taking the time to put this together. I found it interesting that you didn't break any elements at all doing this, but that the elements you used were weakened structurally without showing any visible wear.
Answers.UserDisplayName: jncraton
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2023-09-26T11:43:24.827Z
Answers.Text: @jncraton Thank you for making it possible, I have learned a lot during these tests. Initially I expected the links to irrecoverably break when overloaded, that's why I aimed to test with a lot of links. But got pleasantly surprised when they didn't - and then quite unpleasantly when it turned out that despite the lack of apparent structural damage, the strength was indeed reduced by a considerable margin.
Answers.UserDisplayName: zovits
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2023-09-23T17:01:59.903Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2023-09-23T17:01:59.903Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: zovits
Answers.Body: <p>Simply test it, then divide the force by 2 in order to stay the safe side.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-12-07T04:14:12.940Z
Answers.Text: See the PS part of the question - I would test it if I had the parts
Answers.UserDisplayName: user2813274
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-12-07T19:31:24.600Z
Answers.Text: To improve your answer - could you detail the testing methodology you would use, as well as the measuring setup ?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Phil B.
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-12-08T02:44:24.207Z
Answers.Text: @PhilB. addedᅠᅠ
Answers.UserDisplayName: user2813274
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-12-08T03:37:34.613Z
Answers.Text: @user2813274 - Thanks, but I was suggesting this as an addition to Niels' answer, as his answer is a little too concise and needs some elaborating.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Phil B.
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-12-06T23:13:56.563Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2015-12-06T23:13:56.563Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Niels
Body: <p>Assuming I am using the <a href="https://alpha.bricklink.com/pages/clone/catalogitem.page?P=3711" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Technic Chain Links</a> to make a chain, how much force can I expect to be able to get out of the chain before it breaks?</p>
  <p>Suppose I am using a <a href="https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=94925" rel="nofollow noreferrer">16-tooth gear</a> to directly drive a <a href="https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=3648" rel="nofollow noreferrer">24-tooth gear</a> and have it at the optimal tension for a short distance</p>
  <p>And when it does reach its limit, will it break or will the links just snap undone?</p>
  <p>P.S. - I don't currently own any of these pieces, and would like to get a rough idea first before I buy any and start playing with them - I am hoping to get a considerably larger amount of force from then than a rubber band before it starts to slip, say the full stall power of a PF M motor.</p>
  <p>EDIT: theoretical test methodology:
  Starting from <a href="http://philohome.com/motors/motorcomp.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Philo's motor comp</a>, I would pick a PF motor that I had (say a PF M motor), and gear it up (so that it spins fast), say by 1:3 with a 24-tooth driving an 8-tooth - after that, I would put another 24-tooth on the same axle as the 8-tooth, and place the chain on it - then put another 24 such that the chain lands on it, and lock the last 24t gear's axle such that it does not move (perhaps the last 24t gear can be a clutch gear). Then turn on the motor and see if it holds - assuming it does, I would know that the chain can handle at least 1/3 (gearing) 11 N.cm (PF M stall torque from Philo) - from then I would change the gearing, perhaps with a <a href="https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=32269" rel="nofollow noreferrer">20-tooth</a> and <a href="https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=32270" rel="nofollow noreferrer">12-tooth</a>, or even 1:1 depending on how it seems to fare and repeat the &quot;test&quot; until it does break. If the <a href="https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=60c01" rel="nofollow noreferrer">24-tooth clutch gear</a> starts to spin, I would briefly lock it in place with my hands to get an accurate measure.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-12-14T02:48:35.287Z
Comments.Text: If you can accommodate them, the [Technic wide track links](https://alpha.bricklink.com/pages/clone/catalogitem.page?P=57518#T=C) are significantly stronger
Comments.UserDisplayName: Móż
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-12-17T03:04:30.073Z
Comments.Text: I don't have a number for you, but I did discover fairly quickly that they're much stronger if you turn the clips outward instead of the prettier inward.  Done that way, it'll easily stall a 71427 motor with a 14t gear, which is the smallest I've seen that works.  (I use two of these face-to-face: https://alpha.bricklink.com/pages/clone/catalogitem.page?P=4143)  The 8t just doesn't have enough tooth depth to grab it very well: https://alpha.bricklink.com/pages/clone/catalogitem.page?P=3647  I've never actually broken a link, but I've had them unclip a lot when they were turned inward.
Comments.UserDisplayName: AaronD
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-12-17T19:59:04.710Z
Comments.Text: @AaronD thanks, that's definitely useful to know
Comments.UserDisplayName: user2813274
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-07-04T16:40:37.467Z
Comments.Text: I have had a lot of bad luck with these standard technic chain links, everything from slipping to coming unlinked to even breaking under enough stress (which isn't a lot in my experience).  My current go-to for chain/belt driven devices is the old [Technic, Link Chain Large](http://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=bb76), which is driven with the Expert Builder gears (parts [g9](http://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=g9), [g15](http://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=g15), and [g21](http://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=g21)).
Comments.UserDisplayName: PGmath
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-05-14T11:20:56.937Z
Comments.Text: Be aware: This part has at least two variants with differing reinforcement shapes. This will affect the answer given, and make acquiring a link of known strength a gamble, as BrickLink doesn't differentiate between the variants.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Josh
Tags: <piece-information><technic><mechanical>
Title: How much tension can I expect to get out of a LEGO chains before it starts to give way?
UserDisplayName: user2813274
ThreadText: # How much tension can I expect to get out of a LEGO chains before it starts to give way?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2015-12-06)
  
  Assuming I am using the [Technic Chain Links](https://alpha.bricklink.com/pages/clone/catalogitem.page?P=3711) to make a chain, how much force can I expect to be able to get out of the chain before it breaks?
  
  Suppose I am using a [16-tooth gear](https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=94925) to directly drive a [24-tooth gear](https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=3648) and have it at the optimal tension for a short distance
  
  And when it does reach its limit, will it break or will the links just snap undone?
  
  P.S. - I don't currently own any of these pieces, and would like to get a rough idea first before I buy any and start playing with them - I am hoping to get a considerably larger amount of force from then than a rubber band before it starts to slip, say the full stall power of a PF M motor.
  
  EDIT: theoretical test methodology:
  Starting from [Philo's motor comp](http://philohome.com/motors/motorcomp.htm), I would pick a PF motor that I had (say a PF M motor), and gear it up (so that it spins fast), say by 1:3 with a 24-tooth driving an 8-tooth - after that, I would put another 24-tooth on the same axle as the 8-tooth, and place the chain on it - then put another 24 such that the chain lands on it, and lock the last 24t gear's axle such that it does not move (perhaps the last 24t gear can be a clutch gear). Then turn on the motor and see if it holds - assuming it does, I would know that the chain can handle at least 1/3 (gearing) 11 N.cm (PF M stall torque from Philo) - from then I would change the gearing, perhaps with a [20-tooth](https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=32269) and [12-tooth](https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=32270), or even 1:1 depending on how it seems to fare and repeat the "test" until it does break. If the [24-tooth clutch gear](https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=60c01) starts to spin, I would briefly lock it in place with my hands to get an accurate measure.
  
  **Tags:** piece-information, technic, mechanical
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: If you can accommodate them, the [Technic wide track links](https://alpha.bricklink.com/pages/clone/catalogitem.page?P=57518#T=C) are significantly stronger  
  > **username_2**: I don't have a number for you, but I did discover fairly quickly that they're much stronger if you turn the clips outward instead of the prettier inward.  Done that way, it'll easily stall a 71427 motor with a 14t gear, which is the smallest I've seen that works.  (I use two of these face-to-face: https://alpha.bricklink.com/pages/clone/catalogitem.page?P=4143)  The 8t just doesn't have enough tooth depth to grab it very well: https://alpha.bricklink.com/pages/clone/catalogitem.page?P=3647  I've never actually broken a link, but I've had them unclip a lot when they were turned inward.  
  > **username_0**: @AaronD thanks, that's definitely useful to know  
  > **username_3**: I have had a lot of bad luck with these standard technic chain links, everything from slipping to coming unlinked to even breaking under enough stress (which isn't a lot in my experience).  My current go-to for chain/belt driven devices is the old [Technic, Link Chain Large](http://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=bb76), which is driven with the Expert Builder gears (parts [g9](http://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=g9), [g15](http://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=g15), and [g21](http://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=g21)).  
  > **username_4**: Be aware: This part has at least two variants with differing reinforcement shapes. This will affect the answer given, and make acquiring a link of known strength a gamble, as BrickLink doesn't differentiate between the variants.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2023-09-23. Score: 4
  
  **TL;DR** (or *Executive Summary*, if you like): **Between 620 and 1420 gram**s of mass (6.2 - 14.2 Newtons of force), depending on the pieces and their age.
  
  ## **Long version**
  
  So I decided to give this a shot and tried to measure the tensile strength of the technic chain links by building a homemade LEGO tensile tester machine and using [chain link pieces](https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=3711#T=C) from a new copy of [42107: Ducati Panigale V4 R](https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?S=42107-1) for the simple chain and [42148: Snow Groomer](https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?S=42148-1) for the [tread elements](https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=3873#T=C) - both received as part of [the 2023 Q2 Activity Support initiative](https://bricks.meta.stackexchange.com/q/604/3631).
  
  For the first attempt, I recreated the frame from [my similar project with the train magnets](https://bricks.stackexchange.com/questions/9844/lego-train-magnet-strength/13050#13050), but a lot sturdier, as the chain links are obviously stronger than the magnets. The chain links were attached to the frame and the variable weight basket using gardening wire:
  
  [![wire loops attached to chain link pieces](https://i.sstatic.net/Cd0bY.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/Cd0bY.jpg)
  
  [![Brick-built frame with an empty basket hanging on the chain with the wire loops](https://i.sstatic.net/6paEK.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/6paEK.jpg)
  (pay no attention to the unfinished lower arches, they turned out to be totally unnecessary and I forgot to remove the partially built and still unconnected one before taking the photo)
  
  Then I added batteries to the basket until the chain broke and measured the weight of the basket as it was at the moment...:
  
  [![Photo of the basket full of batteries resting on a kitchen scale, weighing at 800 grams](https://i.sstatic.net/1WtZ4.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/1WtZ4.jpg)
  
  ... at least, that was the plan. Sadly the basket was not heavy enough to break the chain even when filled to the brim and with additional batteries piled on the top. So a rework was necessary to accommodate a larger weight.
  
  The next iteration included a 1.5-liter plastic bottle as the container for the variable weight, attached by the same wire loop to the chain link piece:
  
  [![Plastic bottle hanging on a long chain from the frame, which is raised onto a piece of furniture and some empty boxes](https://i.sstatic.net/FT1uY.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/FT1uY.jpg)
  
  But with this approach, the measured breaking force would refer to the weakest of all the link pairs in the chain - while that could be an interesting measurement as well, I was mainly focused on one individual piece. Another rework resulted in the following contraption:
  
  [![no frame, just a flat beam resting on the furniture and the boxes, with the loop attached to the middle](https://i.sstatic.net/9U9Ez.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/9U9Ez.jpg)
  
  In this closeup, the chain attachment is visible along with the funnel used to fill the bottle gradually:
  [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/FU3Sb.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/FU3Sb.jpg)
  
  Using this setup the first real values were successfully acquired by filling the bottle until the chain broke, taking note of the weight displayed by the kitchen scale, replacing the link in the broken half, emptying the bottle and starting anew: (all values in grams)
  
  * 940
  * 940
  * 940
  * 860
  * 980
  * 920
  * 800
  * 910
  * 870
  * 870
  * 860
  * 710
  
  If you noticed something, congratulations - I didn't, at least not at this point. So I turned to the sidequest: checking if the tracked link variant is measurably different.
  
  Since those links are a lot wider, the attachment to the beam needed to be reworked again in order to access the chain for reattaching it after each breakage:
  
  [![a lot simpler attachment using a fixed pin and returning to the simple wire loop](https://i.sstatic.net/hApO4.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/hApO4.jpg)
  
  This setup has rendered the following measurements:
  
  * 620
  * 750
  
  At this point I realized my mistake: after every breakage, I replaced the center piece of the three-link chain, that wasn't attached to the wire loops. But the end pieces were the same since the beginning, and thus were subjected to the wear and fatigue from countless measurements and failed tests. Their interfaces began to wear down, as it is (at least in hindsight) obvious from the first published data sequence, whose elements do indeed show a steadily declining trend:
  
  [![All measurements plotted along with their trend line showing a decline](https://i.sstatic.net/xLwJ3.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/xLwJ3.png)
  
  So for the final rework, the wire loops became a lot simpler and messier, to facilitate the quick exchange of both participating links (only two this time!) against new ones.
  
  [![The final setup, where only two chain/tread links (and thus one interface destined to break) are included in the measurement](https://i.sstatic.net/Ukxbh.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/Ukxbh.jpg)
  
  Using two brand-new link pieces for all the following measurements, these data were gathered with the simple pieces:
  
  * 1180
  * 1150
  * 1100
  * 1290
  * 1080
  
  And with the track pieces:
  
  * 1280
  * 1420
  * 1360
  * 1400
  * 1350
  
  In conclusion, the tracked pieces are on average really a bit stronger than the simple ones (1362 grams vs. 1160, for a difference of ~15%), but both lose a lot of their strength (up to half of the new value!) when repeatedly forced to their breaking point. Even though there is no visible deterioration and the tests certainly haven't led to any destructive failures (apart from a few drops of spilled water).
  
  ## Notes
  
  The potential difference in strength resulting from turning the links "inside out" as recommended by AaronD in the comments became irrelevant by the test setup which uses a straight stretch of chain. It could be interesting once the chain is wrapped around a gear, but here I tried to get the cleanest measurement with the least amount of variables.
  
  The kitchen scale used still is only accurate to about ~10 grams.
  
  In the end, only 5-5 measurements were made with each link type using the final testing protocol - more measurements could refine the average and might introduce new extremes.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_6**: This is great! Thanks for taking the time to put this together. I found it interesting that you didn't break any elements at all doing this, but that the elements you used were weakened structurally without showing any visible wear.  
  > **username_5**: @jncraton Thank you for making it possible, I have learned a lot during these tests. Initially I expected the links to irrecoverably break when overloaded, that's why I aimed to test with a lot of links. But got pleasantly surprised when they didn't - and then quite unpleasantly when it turned out that despite the lack of apparent structural damage, the strength was indeed reduced by a considerable margin.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_7 on 2015-12-06. Score: -6
  
  Simply test it, then divide the force by 2 in order to stay the safe side.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: See the PS part of the question - I would test it if I had the parts  
  > **username_8**: To improve your answer - could you detail the testing methodology you would use, as well as the measuring setup ?  
  > **username_0**: @PhilB. addedᅠᅠ  
  > **username_8**: @user2813274 - Thanks, but I was suggesting this as an addition to Niels' answer, as his answer is a little too concise and needs some elaborating.  
  
  ---
  
  