etherhuffer 

I use whatever Schmiermittel makes my Schwanzstucker slippery.

etherhuffer 

For my black walnut bittersweet chocolate cookies I use lard and not Crisco. Not the same

etherhuffer 

Also, never put Olestra on your chain

https://www.craigslist.org/about/bes...182862349.html

cyccommute 

D’oh!

cyccommute 

Zerofriction is extrapolating that wear and they are extrapolating far past any measurement. It’s not a bad tool for estimating a phenomena. However, it’s not good practice to go too far past your data. In this case, they seem to be estimating that 3 to 5 times past their last data point. Whatever curve they are using (a “curve” in science can be most any shape including straight) can give a pretty good extrapolation a few units on either end of the curve but if you push too much past the end of the data, you can’t assume that the curve is going keep doing what it did closer to the data.

Some people claim huge mileages on their chains but most people don’t. Think of the implications of a 25,000 mile life span for a chain. If you do 5000 miles per year, that’s a chain that will last 5 years. If you do 3000 miles per year, the chain is going to last over 8 years.

Wattsup

Per the website. 200 hours at 250w is a lot of hard data "Each test takes a lot of time and resources to get through, with most tests expected to take around 150 to 200 hours of run time at 250w load, with many many points of intervention for re-lube & adding contamination. So it will take a while still to build a good league table, but it will be a very exciting build!"

Keefusb

For me, it's not just the life of the chain, it's the life of cassettes, chainrings, derailleur pulleys, etc. that wear out as well from a dirty chain.

cyccommute 

You don’t understand what “hard data” is. For the waxes that they are extrapolating to 25,000 miles, “hard data” would mean gathering data to almost that total 25,000 miles for a valid result. You can’t assume that whatever curve you are using to extrapolate will continue to be valid 2 to 5 times your test interval. The wear may accelerate past a certain point. A general rule of thumb in science is to not extrapolate at all but, if you must, 10% past your last data point is about the most you would go. Generally, if you need that data point way off the end of the curve, you should go measure it.

Additionally, if you get a result that is way off on the right side of the normal distribution, you should question your results, run new test, test again, and test some more. Scientist always question even good results to see if they are missing something.

I’m not unfamiliar with studies that take a long time and a lot of work to do. I’ve run 5 year long storage tests using multiple conditions. I’ve even caused others to change a recognized technique for testing because they had failed to do the kind of work that I had done. They extrapolated data without testing it. I tested at the extrapolated data point and found that their assumptions were wrong.

cyccommute 

That’s also what most others are concerned about although the wear doesn’t necessarily come from the dirt on the chain. The wear on those items comes from the elongation of the chain and the way that the chain interacts with the other components. One way to keep the wear on the other components at a minimum is to change the chain before it wears too much.

Wattsup

I'm pretty sure I do. Hard data is that spreadsheet available for download at the bottom of the webpage I directed you to. But it seems we've been turned around here a bit.

Do you still think this data supports your contention that hot immersive waxing is no better than a regular chain oil?

Keefusb

The most common confidence intervals used in statistical analysis are 90% and 95%, which would tell you that extrapolation out to 25k hours without any adjacent data points is going to yield data and a conclusion that you can't exactly hang your hat on.

Wattsup

I guess not.

grumpus

Eeeewwww. Apparently they still tried to sell it for several years.

grumpus

I use hot water with detergent after shaking the chain in kerosene - it seems to flush out little gritty bits that the kerosene only loosens. Maybe it's just because it's a higher dilution rate - a sink full of water vs. a jar of kerosene - did we have this discussion already?