Originally Posted by
bbbean
If you're going to cite a study, you should cite one that supports your conclusion. This is a 20+ yr old preliminary study published in a popular magazine, with a lot of missing information, and even the results they cite had a 17% difference between tests! There is also the major problem of testing efficiency through infrared photography rather than through direct measurement
Yes, the link if from a magazine…whether it was popular is a different matter. However, I
have read the study when it was published and the science is sound.
Um…Cycling About is a peer reviewed journal? I had no idea.
Zero Friction is also a peer reviewed journal? Zero Friction is run by a published scientist? I also question the conclusions drawn on the Zero Friction website. He states that premium chains wear slower but only offers two examples that could be outliers. The other chains seem to fall within a similar range. There’s also nothing in his data to indicate what kind of error there is in the measurement.
I’ll trust the results from Johns Hopkins especially since the study is not just “preliminary” but
published. If you wish, you can request a copy
here. I no longer have access to the journal but I have read it in the past. Frictional losses isn’t an issue with bicycle chain drives.
There are no doubt other sites with well documented testing procedures, but there's enough there to back up what I hear from people I trust, and to convince me that there are differences between chains and lubes, and those differences are worth my time and money to investigate.
The problem here is the difference between a website and a scientific paper. Anyone can put up a website and, if they get enough clicks, can influence people. A scientific paper is scrutinized at a much higher level.
I understand that you disagree. Your comments suggest I'm a fool being taken in by hucksters. I'm OK with you believing that. So I'll continue to follow the up to date published results and use the equipment and maintenance that I believe improves my bike's efficiency.
Have a great day.
You are conflating me with someone else who you interacted with. My objection to elaborate cleaning procedures is with the elaborate nature of them. Silca’s “system” makes no sense from a chemical procedure stand point. If they turned around the order, it would make more sense. Do the water based stuff first, then chase off the water with alcohol, then do the mineral spirits. Or, since the wax covering the chain (not a “grease”), just skip to the mineral spirits phase and be done. The thing that really shouts out to me that they have no idea what they are doing is the suggestion of ultrasonicing a solvent above its flash point. That’s a good way of burning down your house. It says to me that they came up with the idea because it “sounded right” but not because they actually ever tested it.