Originally Posted by
Racing Dan
This is great ´n all, if you follow the test procedure. Then some lubes come out really bad and others look like they can make a chain last forever. However, have you any idea how this is tested?
let me tell you in brief. A chain that last all 6 blocks are lubricated a total of 30 times or, on average ever 200 simulated km. Sounds reasonable. - Except, that involves removing the chain from the bike 30 times to hot wax it. Thats a lot of work that I have a hard time believing anyone would keep up.
Contrast that to how the test is performed with drip lubes. Chain is initially cleaned and lubed with the test lubricant, but every subsequent lubing is applied on top of the old lube and added sand/contamination. NO cleaning at all. Chain is simply run into the ground, caked in old lube and sand. - Imo, you have to ask yourself if that procedure was designed in good faith or a specific outcome was the objective. I dunno, I was just stunned when i finally came around to read beyond the headline.
I have a few thoughts...
Firstly often in these waxing topics there are people who feel the need to disparage the effort required for waxing and give "advice" about how it's much simpler just to apply one drop of lube per roller and wipe clean. Considering how large of an undertaking cleaning an oiled dirty chain is, I doubt many do it all that often. So the method of applying lube on a not completely sterile chain is pretty common.
On the topic of effort, rewaxing every 200km isn't unheard of. I do it when the conditions are bad. But the people who do usually rotate multiple chains so the typical chain maintenance is actually just a chain swap, which doesn't take a lot of effort at all.
With wax you can't really skimp on the waxing intervals because a chain that has had its wax worn off becomes very noisy very quickly.
As to the test protocol, it is mentioned that the lubes are applied per manufacturer instructions. One would assume that if manufacturer states that add drop per roller and wipe clean, that is what is done. However if the chain is not wiped clean after drip lubes the test itself can give valuable information on how the different lubes perform. With hot melt waxes you're sorta kinda forced to dunk the chain in wax, which in turn does clean the chain. That is in fact one of the main advantages of hot melt waxes.
On that point, some drip lubes are marketed by statements like "cleans and lubes". But the ZFC protocol debunks such claims quite efficiently.
I wouldn't say the test protocol has been devised in bad faith or to favor one type of lube over the next. Wax needs frequent reapplication. That's sorta the whole point. But perhaps the ZFC has some exasperation toward A) marketing claims and B) towards people who claim wiping a chain clean is all you need.
If you read the testing protocol, you'll notice that block 1 is 1000km and has no added contamination. So there is valuable data to be gleaned from that alone. If a drip lube fares badly with in block 1 and is lubricated by manufacturer instructions, it's a bad lube. For example Muc Off nano went through 37 % of its wear allocation in 1000km with
no added contamination.
However even if the test protocol isn't optimal for drip lubes, there are drip lubes which fare very well indeed. Rex Black Diamond being one of them (they also have a hot melt wax called Black Diamond. That's different stuff. The original is wet drip lube).
So even with the faults in the test protocol, if you know how to read the data you can get some pretty good conclusions out.