TromboneAl

I usually get 1,000 miles on one paraffin lubing, but I rarely get the chain wet. The chain itself is stainless steel.

Last week the bike was on a rack on the back of the car, and got about 40 minutes of torrential rain.

I've since ridden on a 60 mile ride, and expected to hear it starting to get noisy, but it's been fine. When should I expect to see the evil effects of getting the paraffin lubed chain wet?

Thanks

FBinNY 

First of all, it's stainess. Second, it depends on the adhesion of the paraffin to the steel. If the paraffin adheres well and water can't get under it, you're fine regardless of whether the chain is stainless or not. OTOH- if the paraffin is flaking and water gets between it and the steel then most chains will rust.

Otherwise, the water will dry out with some time in the sun, and the chain should be unaffected. If the wax is somewhat water soluble (true paraffin isn't) then you should expect shorter than normal service life. In any case, time will tell.

MikeWMass

I use paraffin (with graphite) and I end up riding in the rain or on wet roads every month or so. I seem to get about 5-600 miles between relubing, I haven't really noticed that the water makes much difference. I sometimes lube when it seems like it has been a while and I have a little free time, that way I don't have to listen to the squeaks when it is definitely time to lube!
Off topic, I have found that when I do hear the squeaks, as often as not it is the derailleur cogs and not the chain at all.

Panthers007

I always use a paraffin-based lube on chains: Boeshield T-9. Made by Boeing Aircraft of Seattle, 1 drop per link. Never had a problem or complaint. Stuff's great - but rather expensive.

JerrySTL

A few weeks ago I clean and lubed my chain with paraffin plus cleaned the entire bike. Of course it rain while riding the next day. I still haven't re-lubed the chain and it's doing fine.

I only go about 300 miles between lubes. It's too easy to just turn on the crock pot; wipe down the chain; disconnect the KMC connector; and drop the chain in the melted wax (with a wire attached to the end of the chain to pull it out). It doesn't take all that long to re-install the chain. I'd rather clean and lube a little too often than not often enough.

Bruce27

Don't mean to hijack this thread but now you have my curiosity going.
Do you add powdered graphite to the molten wax?

rpenmanparker 

I used straight paraffin for chian lube for about 25 years. If the chain were not stainless (really, are you sure it is), I would relube ASAP after getting it wet. Paraffin does not contain corrosion inhibitors like modern chain lubes do.

cyccommute 

Just getting it wet isn't the issue. Paraffin, like any petroleum based lubricant, is hydrophobic... literally "water hating". Just spraying water on it as it sits statically on the back of a car won't have too much effect. If you were to ride the bike in that kind of rain, the lubrication undergoes shearing that allows the water to mix with the lubricant and move towards the metal surface where it can start the rusting process.

Panthers007

If you want to get really technical, paraffin is a aliphatic hydrocarbon - which means it is not water-soluble.

I used to teach chemistry in a very cool high-school. One day it snowed heavily. So I took my class outside and had them roll up the biggest snowball they could. Then we dug a pit into the top of the snowball and I filled it with pentane - which is like gasoline only more volatile. And then we set the snowball on fire. We toasted some marshmallows while I explained about aliphatic hydrocarbons to the class. The director of the school nearly fainted when he saw us lighting a snowball ablaze.

cyccommute 

I stand by what I said. Being hydrophobic means the same as not being water soluble.

rpenmanparker 

Not exactly, but close enough for bicycle work.

Mark Kelly 

Literally water fearing: hυδορ (hydor) = water, φοβοσ (phobos) = fear, hence "phobia".

Phobos was one of the companions of the god of war, the others being Deimos (panic) and Eris (discord).

Solubility is a lot more complex than you appear to think: the subject is not taught properly in high school chemistry.

Panthers007

Please don't get me started! I'll wind up blowing something up before the nights out....Ooops!!

cyccommute 

First, in the context of the chemical, water "fearing" makes no sense. Hydrocarbons don't "fear" water. Nothing happens if a hydrocarbon is mixed with water other than it won't mix. A pyrophoric substance would better be described as "fearing" water for a different reason. Water "hating" is probably too anthropomorphic as well but better describes how hydrocarbons won't mix with water.

Solubility isn't that complex. There are some minor details but the rule of thumb in chemistry of "like dissolves like" works in 99.9% of mixtures. In other words, if the solvent and the solute are of similar polarities, they are probably soluble in each other. In the above example, the wax on the chain isn't soluble enough in water to matter. I'd be surprised if the typical wax used for waxing chains (probably a canning wax) has a water solubility in the parts per million range. To put that in perspective, 1 g of wax dissolved in 1 million grams of water (a metric ton). That's a bunch of water.

jfowler85

Hydrophobia and philia are basic chem 101 terms which describe a substance's solubility with respect to water. It's an expression, of course it's a misnomer, it's not meant to be taken literally. Of course nothing happens when you mix a hydrophobic substance with water, by definition one is polar and one non-polar, ergo no london forces cause molecular dispersion but rather opposing forces tend to push the hydrophobic substance in an "away" direction, which is why grease congregates in the center a bowl of water with unbroken surface tension. It also the same reason why soap forms micelles around non-polar substances, and why the lipid membrane spontaneously congregates, in water.

To say that solubility is not complex is simply to stand upon the knowledge of another's work;, considering the intermolecular forces which drive the instance of substances' propensities to mix uniformly in solution, and given the fact that understanding why such forces occur is only possible through xray crystallography and subsequent molecular modeling, it is clear that there is a generation of research upon which you are able to make that comment. Besides, the like-dissolves-like rule will get you far enough in chemistry to pass the first round of exams in a general survey course...biological systems can and do produce non-water-soluble proteins; this is not exactly a minor detail and is a significant component of proteomic research.

cyccommute 

The reason why one solute is soluble a solvent is complex but what is soluble in a given solvent isn't. More importantly than passing exams, "like dissolves like" will get you through day to day work in a laboratory. If someone asks me to make up a solution of, say, sodium hydroxide, I don't go do mathematical modeling and x-ray crystallography and take 2 years of supercomputer time and millions of dollars in research funding to make up the solution. If they want the solution in water, I dissolve the NaOH in water. If they need a non-aqueous solvent, I dissolve it up in a short chain alcohol. Why? Because both of those substances are polar like the NaOH is.

Similarly, if I have a weird mixture of compounds that needs dissolving from, for example, the pyrolysis of wood, X-ray crystallography isn't going to do me any good. There is nothing that can be measured in that mixture that can be measured that way. And there isn't enough computing power on the planet to model the mixture. The mixture is a soup of phenolic compounds, aldehydes, degraded carbohydrates, organic acids and water. There are hundreds of different compound in the mixture. I know from experience what will and what will not dissolve the soup. No computers are needed or even useful. Just good ol' fashion "like dissolves like" chemistry.

You've also got the order of who owes what to whom upside down. People were using "like dissolves like" to dissolve substances long before the invention of molecular modeling and x-ray crystallography. Without that work, mathematical modeling wouldn't be possible.

Biological systems produce both water soluble (e.g. hormones) and water insoluble proteins (e.g. connective tissue). So what? Biological systems create water soluble carbohydrates (e.g. sugars and some starches) and water insoluble carbohydrates (e.g. other starches and cellulose). Biological systems also make water soluble lipids and water insoluble lipids. While interesting, that has nothing to do with TromboneAl's question. The answer to his question is straight forward and simple. No need to obfuscate it with a bunch of red herrings.

jfowler85

Gotcha yet again! I love it; predictability like a waterfowl. You missed the point there, but let's take a look:

Break out the old gen bio text - hormones are not proteins. Common sex hormones are actually derived from cholesterol, far from a protein. Many have aromatic rings, ie cyclic, planar carbon rings with all atomic p orbitals occupied...and don't forget that (4n+2) rule. Sometimes simple neurotransmitters are classified as hormones depending on what route they travel. Proteins are chains of amino acids or polypeptides formed into a tertiary structure, in many instances solely with the aid of enzymes.



What: Connective tissue is sometimes seen in humans as substances like collagen suspended in an extracellular matrix - ie CT is not a protein per se, but is composed of fibroblast-derived proteins suspended in another substance - ie there's much more going on there than just a protein, which contributes to solubility in water. Also, some adipocytes form a lipid based connective tissue which provides cushioning for biomechanical processes - ie not protein.

Cellulose is more accurately described as a long chain polysaccharide; labeling it a carbohydrate is like labeling all combustible carbon based fuels as hydrocarbons - true but the definition is extremely broad for the purposes of anything more than simple layman's explanation.

I think you are referring to fatty acids here...having a polar end does not constitute solubility in water, it just means the molecule can hydrogen-bond with a polar substance. Again, I point you to the lipid membrane in water.



Touche to that. Are you a lab tech?



I thought the same thing of this:





Why thank you.



Neither does your response to Mark Kelly, who was (correctly) pointing out the etymology of the terms hydrophobic and hydrophilic, which you incorrectly dismissed, though the Greek terms from which the two aforementioned English terms are derived are very simple.

Do xray crystallography or molecular modeling (which needs neither a supercomputer nor millions of dollars, by the way) have an appropriate place in the day-to-day grind of a lab tech? Certainly not; these are the tools of scientists and academics. The point there, if perhaps I was unclear, was that such methodologies and technologies have enabled the field in which you work, and it seems crass to dismiss this notion. The point of the biological systems comment was to showcase that in the world of biochemical research, solubility is not a simple issue of "like-dissolves-like," and presents many challenges that do consequently require supercomputers and millions of dollars. But yes, I concede to you that in the context of an industrial lab wherein one is only concerned with simple things like mass solution preparation, the gen chem term will get you plenty far.

cyccommute 

In order to be a "gotcha" you have to "get" something. You haven't. You had no point germane to the discussion so, of course, I missed your "point". I can't find something that isn't there.

Waterfowl are predictable?

Perhaps you should break out the ol' general bio text. Hormones can certainly be proteins. Sex hormones are only one part of the hormones that animals and plants use. Ignoring plant hormones, animal hormones are broken into 3 classes: protein hormones like insulin and human grow hormone, lipid and phospolipid hormones like prostaglandins, cortisol and testosterone and, finally, monoamines like epinephrine.

No gotcha.

Again: So what? What does that have to do with removing lubricant from a bicycle chain?

By the way, connective tissues aren't just collagen substances. Connective tissues are tissues that hold the body together and are epithelial, muscle, and nervous tissues. They are generally not soluble in water since you don't dissolve into a puddle every time you take a shower.

Still no gotcha.

A saccharide is a carbohydrate. If you string a bunch of them together it is still a carbohydrate. It is just a polymeric form of carbohydrate. If you take cellulose apart, you end up with glucose which is still a carbohydrate.

As to the hydrocarbons, if you are talking about fuels derived from the distillation of petroleum, then they are of course hydrocarbons. If the molecule being burned has one carbon and 4 hydrogens, it is still a hydrocarbon. If it has 10 carbons and 22 hydrogens, it would still be a hydrocarbon. If it had 6 carbons and 6 hydrogens, it would still be a hydrocarbon. It can't be anything else. Hydrocarbons are a class of molecules just as carbohydrates are.

Still no gotcha

You seem to have a problem with understanding classes of compounds. You also seem to have a problem with understanding how solubility works. If a fatty acid can hydrogen-bond with a polar substance like water and the fatty acid is no longer a solid in that polar substance, it has dissolved. A lipid membrane isn't dissolved in water. If it were, it wouldn't be a membrane any more.

Still no gotcha

No. I'm not a "lab tech". I'm a research chemist. But that doesn't make being a lab tech any less respectable. I know lots of lab techs and they all grasp chemistry and biology better than you have.

Still no gotcha

Quoting out of context is a very bad way of making your point. And you completely ignore the point of what I was saying. How does x-ray crystallography help in the solution of a complex liquid mixture.

No gotcha

Another out of context quote and the topic is interesting. Not you.

No gotcha

There's etymology and there's general usage. While the roots of words can provide insight to their meaning, the root isn't the end all of the definition. Hydrophobic and hydrophilic when applied to chemistry is a short hand for "doesn't have the proper electronic configuration for intermolecular or interatomic interaction to allow"...Jeez, is getting way too long. "Water hating" (or fearing if you prefer) saves time and is easier to understand.

You still have this backwards. Molecular modeling is the end point, not the beginning. It can not be done without first doing experiments that involve such simple concepts as "like dissolves like". You can't build any kind of model without data and the only way to get data is to do the experiments which usually start with a simple idea. Modeling helps in understanding some relationships but they are very limited and, usually, wrong.

X-ray crystallography has only a limited application. You have to have something that is solid or crystalline to use it as a tool. It will tell you nothing about solutions nor the interactions involved in solubility of most substances. NMR, GCMS, LC and a whole slate of instruments will give more meaningful information that can be used for molecular modeling and each of them starts with dissolving the sample by using the simple idea of "like dissolves like"

Frankly, you sound like someone who is just using buzz words without any understanding of the science behind them.

Kimmo 

Reckon it would've helped that you weren't actually using the chain in the torrential rain.

jfowler85

You entertain me in moments of boredom.

Waterfowl are predictable, that's why the hunting is good. You live in CO and don't hunt duck? Missed opportunity!

Sure hormones can be proteins, but hormones are not [generally] proteins, which is specifically what you said. Hormones are synthetic substances which affect the biochemical pathway of particular processes. You are referring specifically to peptide hormones like insulin. This is an important distinction which was overlooked. In the spirit of the argument, it's like saying chemicals are water soluble. Some are, some aren't, and I am confident that you would make the same correction as you are fond of demonstrating your knowledge on this forum. Also, it's a bit more complex than just 3 classes of hormones...that sounds like a rip off of wikipedia (I directed you an academic text, keep up!); there is also important classification based on the mode of travel, cascade or direct DNA effects, and where the target location is in relation to the gland secreting said hormone.

What does any of this have to do with chain lubing? Can't you tell? Nothing, it's all about eliciting a response from you, which is rather easy. It amuses me the same way that drivers get pissed off when I don't let them speed around me. I get a sh-t eating grin when I see the look on that other person's face. That would be you. You must see where this is going, you correctly identified that I am responding to you specifically and not the topic at hand. Keep following the rabbit trail and you might get it.

Hydrocarbons are molecules with a hydrogen AND a carbon? Man, you're blowing my mind. Distillation of petroleum? I call buzz word(s)! I'm not clear why you seem to think that I said connective tissues are not water soluble...my point there was to state that you didn't seem to grasp quite what a connective tissue is. Perhaps you do, though, I'll give that one away. If connective tissue was water soluble, I think puddles would be the least of our worries.

My point with the lipid membrane is to demonstrate that capacity to hydrogen bond does not constitute solubility in water. Phospholipids spontaneously generate the lipid bilayer rafts in water because of this. Can a fatty acid dissolve in water? Yes, because it has the capacity to h-bond with water. So there you have two compounds which both possess the capacity for h-bonding...one dissolves and one congregates in water. That's the point, and just that. Let's work on critical reading here. I would guess you see images of figures in your toast sometimes.

Etymology and general usage? You shot down another's correct term derivative for no other reason than to be superior. Apparently you are flawless. My mistake.

I never said molecular modeling was the end point, I'm not sure where you got that from. X-ray cryst. does have a limited applicability, in fact it is extremely particular, but what results from the work reaches into areas that many scientific disciplines benefit from and use. You have called yourself a chemist, yet you do not understand the implications and downstream effects of such methodology? Interesting.

Another thing, you have conflated solubility and molecular dispersion due to repulsive forces. One is not the other, though they are related and have correlation, generally. I would have to say that you have self-described very well when mentioning the bit about not understanding the science behind what we are discussing. These are basic and fundamental principles that you claim to work with every day, yet it seems like your knowledge is the level of an ojt'd nonprofessional lab tech. You've said nothing to explain any of the science that you are stating I do not understand, and just keep repeating the same "you're wrong because I said so" synonymous phrases. It's like an idiosyncrasy, and that's why I love irking you. I.e., don't stop what you do, it keeps me entertained between patients while at work.

If a scientific term is a buzzword to you...well then by all means whatever you do don't read an academic journal, they're full of them.

If the gotcha criterium is simply a self assessment, then I would say, gotcha x2, and therefore is a win. Unless you come back at me with a no-gotcha x3, then we'll have to continue...*gasp*

cyccommute 

It's just not worth the effort to correct you. Let's just say that you've got some real knee slappers in there.

themishmosh

You bike geeks are freaking nuts.

fietsbob

AL , use the same oil as you use to lubricate the Trombone Slide. Amazon.com: trombone slide oil

Hopslam

+1 along with the thing cyccomute said about shearing. Which is the same as not useing it

MikeWMass

Haven't been following for a while. I use a variant of a method described many times by "Garth" on the Bicycling magazine forums. Basically, you heat up the chain (he does it over the stove, I put it in a pan in the oven at 180 deg), sprinkle powdered graphite over the the chain, and rub it with a votive candle. Turn it over, reheat and repeat. It works for me, and doesn't get all gooey like liquid lubes do. I have ridden through some impressive storms and have not had a problem.