[FarmerJohn]

I'd check your setup and your tension. Now I see all these people up here saying that it's an easy solution to switch to #35 chain and be done with it, but that's not fixing a fault of #25 chain, that's trying to cover up poor design and assembly, and in this endeavor, you should always work to have the best setup you can. Loads of highly successful teams use #25 chain in their drives and are likely using it more strenuously than you are. You can run #25 chain on tiny sprockets with sub-optimal tension and it's still going to run for the most part fine, as lone as your alignment is correct. Getting completely straight alignment of your sprockets is key. Use CAD to make sure you have correctly made spacers with little wiggle room to fit everything where it needs to be. Use the location of one sprocket in your CAD to drive the position of its partnering sprocket, and then design your spacers around that. After everything is aligned, make sure you have adequate tension. If you don't have tensioning blocks built in, you can go for other ways of tightening your chain (zip ties are a decent last resort to keeping tension in a system). If you're going C-C, use Paul Copioli's chain calculator in his Useful Calcs spreadsheet. You shouldn't just look at poor execution of #25 chain and think the solution is to move to #35.

I agree with Joe: I don't want an alliance partner that spins circles in matches because of lost chain. However I also don't want an alliance partner that covers up poor execution in design, because they will likely cover up poor execution in strategy and performance, which is the last thing I need in the finals.