cyccommute 

A bit too much fear mongering there. While some perflouroalkyl substances may be toxic, we don’t really know which ones nor how toxic they are. It’s a reasonably safe bet to say that polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE) isn’t. It is a very stable polymer that doesn’t react with much of anything. Being a “forever chemical” may sound scary but the “forever” part means that the chemical is highly stable and not prone to reactivity. Lack of reactivity means that it is less likely to cause cancer.

The wax itself is much more likely to contain cancerous chemicals than the added Teflon and it isn’t likely to contain much.

Want some real fear mongering? Any number of the fluids used in an automobile has far more likelihood to cause cancer than PFAS will. Gasoline alone contains huge quantities of benzene as a percentage of weight which is a known carcinogen.

maddog34

that's not fear mongering on your part, it's an outright lie buried in ambiguity.. You are now blocked, Cyco. Bye.

cyccommute 

I just love people who have to publicly announce using the ignore list. I’ve used it the list myself but I don’t find the need to announce it publicly. You “blocking” me doesn’t really hurt my feelings.

I know you won’t read this (or think you won’t) but PFAS is the latest of a string of SCARRRY words that the media grabs hold of. Remember BPA? Before that was Alar…when people sent the cops to keep their kids from eating apples. Lead. Dioxins. PCBs. And on and on. Yes, some of those are toxic. Yes, some of those cause problems. But as I pointed out above, there are lots of chemicals we use in millions to hundreds of millions of gallons per day that we just don’t even think about. 370 million gallons of gasoline…a known carcinogen…are used every day in the US and we don’t even bat an eye.

And your degree in chemistry is from where? No great loss.

hevysrf

1. Purchase new chain
2. Spray on Boeshield T9
3. Ride


Repeat as required.

mackgoo

Today I noticed a broken spoke on the daily driver so I dusted off the X4, it's time I took it out for a spin.Just got back and you guessed it the chain went into the gas in preparation for w**ing tomorrow. It will be interesting to see how a 7sp syncro shifts that 1st 20 minutes into the first ride after the w**ing.

Chain as is cave man style.







Freewheel as is. I'm just going to run it as is and see if it cleans up over time.




The X4. As soon as I get the Galmozzi together the X4 got in for paint.

Kontact 

That handlebar set up is like a massive forehead wort on an incredibly beautiful woman.

mpetry912 

you know it seems like a lot of work.

I actually knew a guy who was badly burned in a chain waxing acccent, this was way back in the day.

silca has gone big on the waxing thing. I use their lube, and had good results with it

my cassette and chain are cleaner than that ! I rode this bike today

/markp

mackgoo

Post cave man clean.




21st century




Syncro worked great.

mackgoo

Today I waxed again.

335 miles since the last wax, 1500 miles total. I know the miles are nothing, but just recording for documentation.




Never cleaned the cassette prior to switch over.



Chain 335 miles since last wax pre clean.




Post clean. Poured a kettle of boiled water over it.




Waxed and ready to roll.




Next time I'll shoot for 400 miles as I didn't feel like the chain needed to be waxed, just did it.

AndreyT

cyccommute 

Well that isn’t true. Neither are claims of tens of thousands of miles. Nor does wax need to be reapplied every 5 miles as some have implied.

Wax works about a well as oil in my experience. I use solvent wax but it’s similar enough to hot wax to not make any real difference. I’m currently running a long term test where I am keeping records of frequency of application and life of the chain. I’ve gone 450 miles between the first application and the next. The chain has 600 miles on it now…about half way to Zin’s claimed life of a waxed chain…and it isn’t showing any wear.

Even if wax did result in shorter chain life, I’d still use it. Having no need to constantly cleaning the drivetrain…or anything the drivetrain comes in contact with…is worth (purported) accelerated wear.

SoSmellyAir

Mr. Zinn's 4th Ed. was published in Feb. 2013.

NEW! Zinn & the Art of Road Bike Maintenance 4th edition - Zinn Cycles - Custom Bikes | Boulder Colorado

That is 10.5 years ago. I don't know what wax lubricants was available then or which ones he was referring to. It is unclear from the posted text whether he was referring to immersion waxing.

davidad

I gave up on wax because it doesn't hold up that well, especially in the wet. I cleaned my chains in an ultra sonic cleaner, and lubed them with a 4 to 1 mix of chain saw bar oil and unscented mineral spirits. Ride 800 miles and repeat. Holds up well in the wet.

cyccommute 

Waxes used haven’t changed all that much since the 80s when I experimented with them. Most people are using Gulf canning wax or waxes used for candle making. They are all about the same.

Keefusb

The process I have been following is to clean the chain in mineral spirits using the shaken jar method. Remove chain from jar and wipe with a cloth or rag. For hot waxing I have been experimenting with the addition of other lubricants to the melted wax. The best overall results I have had have been with the addition of a teaspoon of mineral oil (the kind you can get at the drug store for $5) to my 2 quart crock pot. There seems to be less flaking off of the wax and the drivetrain is quieter for the first few miles with the addition of the mineral oil. Once the wax cools, the wax "puck" is still solid enough to allow the bottom layer of crud to be scraped off before the next waxing cycle.

elcruxio

Zinn has other strange ideas as well, like the whole proportional crank thing. Or rather the excessively way too long cranks for tall people. Short people definitely need shorter cranks but 175mm is more than long enough for pretty much anyone, unless you're Shaquille O'Neal. I'm 6'5" and I occasionally consider getting 170mm cranks.

Kontact 

Or maybe he's just been doing it wrong. Some people don't get the chain hot enough for the wax to migrate in and stick.

Waxing is a really old technique that recent lab tests confirm offers excellent, lasting lubrication. Any modifications or additions to that formula are untested (solvent adding guys).

Keefusb

Another former chemist here. After experimenting with a number of non-solvent additives to plain old paraffin wax (such as motor oil, silicone, ATF, and castor oil to name a few), empirical evidence suggests that plain old mineral oil as an additive to paraffin wax enhances the properties of plain old paraffin (i.e. that mineral oil helps the liquified wax to penetrate into the inner structure of the chain, it helps to prevent excessive shedding of solid wax, and results in less noisy running and shifting performance) without compromising the positive properties of using paraffin wax (i.e. less attraction of road grit and dirt, less wear, longer chain and drivetrain life, and fewer chain and chainring tattoos).

I would posit that the non-solvent additives listed above have been tested and that mineral oil yielded the best results.

Kontact 

How did you test the penetration? The penetration of molten wax is excellent because it is so thin and has tremendous wicking properties.

Why did you decide that the wax shedding is a bad thing?

What does bad wax related shifting performance look like?

Don't you think the quieter chain is because you increased the viscosity and therefore decreased the efficiency? Grease would be even quieter.

cyccommute 

The addition of mineral oil in a hot melt would make the wax thinner at any temperature.

You don’t seem to understand viscosity. It’s defined as

Wax is a solid material that is in the same class of hydrocarbon compounds that make up chemicals from methane (a gas) to mineral spirits to mineral oil and on to waxes. Asphaltenes are extreme examples of hydrocarbons being extremely dense and hard. Adding mineral oil to wax would decrease the viscosity of the wax and make it slightly more flexible. Grease is kind of on the opposite end of that equation because it used a thicker material to make increase a thin oil’s viscosity so that it doesn’t just run off.

Kontact 

And? The chain pivots aren't water tight. Either the wax penetrates or it does not. The only thing making the wax thinner would likely do is cause it to run back out before it hardens.

No, you just don't understand the point I'm making, because you have this magical belief that wax is a dry film lubricant that miraculously lasts hundreds of miles. So there is nothing to discuss.

You don't need to interrupt further.

Keefusb

I threw in some old segments of chain that had been trimmed off of some new chains when I was testing (many of these tests were done years ago). When I opened up these segments, the mineral oil mix appeared to put more material inside the links than plain wax. I used a 10x printer's loupe to look at the links.

I believe that the addition of the mineral oil reduced the viscosity of the wax just enough to improve flow into the inner surfaces of the links.

Excess wax shedding is a pain in the a$$ plus it can get on rim braking surfaces and contaminate the brake pads if you are running rim brakes.

I don't believe I characterized plain wax chain performance as "bad". The mineral oil mix was/is quieter than plain wax.

The other variable I didn't test was the wax. I use Gulf canning wax. Other brands or types of paraffin wax may perform differently. Some folks use a paraffin-beeswax mix with good results. I use Gulf because it is cheap and readily available.

The other reason I like mineral oil verses the other lubricant additives is that it is less toxic and can be safely consumed by humans in small amounts. Can't really say that about motor oil, ATF, and silicone. Castor oil is relatively non-toxic, but didn't seem to preform as well as mineral oil.

Kontact 

Inside the link plates, or inside the rollers? Chain lubes are for the rollers and pins.

Keefusb

Yes, inside the pins and rollers.

Kontact 

I find this a bit surprising as liquid wax is so thin and has such a strong capillary tendency that it will climb a wick, yet you're saying that a hot chain in molten wax somehow resists the wax penetrating the roller and allowing the air to escape.