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

You might enjoy:
https://www.cyclingabout.com/how-muc...slow-you-down/
https://zerofrictioncycling.com.au/chaintesting/

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.

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.

cyccommute 

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.


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.

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.

bbbean 

Well, I suppose that since you read a study 20 years ago and assure us the science is sound the matter is settled. Is that your argument?


No they aren't, nor did I suggest they were (although I will point out that you and I both hold advanced degrees and should know that "scientist" isn't a title, and published isn't a guarantee of accuracy or rigor - there's a reason you publish methods, results, and analysis before the conclusion). However, their procedures and analysis are published, rigorous, and up to date. We can evaluate the accuracy of their work by reviewing their methodology and data. Personally, I'm inclined to trust their measurements more than 20 year old infrared photography. I'm also inclined to think that given the levels of interest and study in bicycle technology over the past 20 years, it is entirely possible current studies could show differences that weren't expected in the past. Consider what we've learned in aerodynamics.

The data disagrees

allan6344

I am a reformed chain slob who would just add more lube before the next commute until the dirt and grit wore the chain out. Now I use the Silca wax in a two 1.5 quart, 14 dollar, crock pot system as suggested by zerofriction.com.au. I just store the two pots on the workbench with wax. Pot one is the paraffin wax and pot two is the Silca wax. I put the chain in the first paraffin wax pot and turn them both on low and come back a little later in the evening and put the chain in pot two, swish it around and hang it up to drip into the now turned off pots. A little extra time before riding to reinstall the chain and overall this doesn't take much time every two or three weeks depending on conditions. Eventually after about 30 cycles, the first pot is thrown out and the second pot becomes the first pot with clean wax in the second pot. The initial cleaning of new chains is the biggest pain of the system. I do like and use some of the Silca products but I take the charlatan/engineer with a grain of salt and don't quite believe everything. I'm not quite convinced the super secret chain cleaner isn't just some repackaged common solvent but I will probably give it a try. Zerofriction doesn't always have his latest info published but he will talk about it on his Friday YouTube channel for the too much information people.

SoSmellyAir

allan6344 The dual pot system sounds like a pretty good idea.

What is the easiest and/or cleanest way to empty pot #1 when you decide that the old wax is too contaminated?

allan6344

I haven't gotten to that point but I think it will scoop out easy enough. If not I can take the ceramic pot out and warm it with hot water.

cyccommute 

It’s not that much wear. It’s that the particles are finely divided. Chop a small amount of material into very small bits and it looks like a lot of material. There is some material from the outside of the chain…just not as much as some would believe. Some of that material may even be magnetic since we humans have spread iron all over the world. Go drag a magnet through any random pile of dirt and you’ll collect all kinds of iron particles.

Frankly, I wouldn’t bust out the dollars for the Silca wax. Any improvements in paying roughly 6 times as much for wax is minimal at best. I also see little reason for any kind of cleaning that Silca, Zero Friction, and thousands of other cyclists seem to feel is absolutely “necessary”. The supposition is that wax doesn’t stick to the chain because of other lubricants on the chain. Considering that the wax is in the same family as the “grease” already on the chain, this is a silly supposition that is based on a lack of knowledge about materials.

Your chain cleaning is a special issue due to the ban of mineral spirits in your area. Water based degreasers just aren’t going to clean as well with as little volume as mineral spirits will. I’m not sure how to crack that nut short of smuggling mineral spirits over the border from Nevada or Arizona.

jadmt

who would have ever guessed you felt that way? I have spent most of my money on beer, cigarettes and expensive chain wax and the rest I have just wasted...

cyccommute 

Well, I suppose that since you assuming that any study done 20 years ago is irrelevant that the matter is settled. Is that your argument?

First, it is disingenuous to fault me for linking to a magazine article from 20 years ago by linking to an undated article in a magazine and a commercial website. I provided a link to the scientific journal article from a professor of engineering at a well recognized university.

Second, publication in a scientific journal at least gives a reasonable expectation of accuracy and rigor.

Third, most of what we have learned about aerodynamics hasn’t occurred in the last 5 to 10 years. We know a lot about aerodynamics from studies done many years ago. You should know that science improves on previous results but doesn’t reject them outright just because the study is old.

Okay, let’s look at the “data” from the Science Daily and Cycle About articles. Let’s start with the test bed. The apparatus described in the Science Daily article sounds similar to that used in the Cycle About article. That establishes that the comparison of the two articles valid.

The Science Daily article says that the efficiency of the chain ranges from 81% to 98% and is dependent on the size of the sprockets. The Cycle About article says that the efficiency ranges from 92% to 97%. The results are a bit better than the Johns Hopkins Study but I don’t see anything in the Cycle About article that says they changed the sprocket size. Their losses are due to contamination. Neither article really addresses the “quality” of the chains used. Let’s assume at least similar quality. The Johns Hopkins study isn’t “invalid because it is old”. It gave similar results to the clean case of the Cycle About article.

The “data” shows that chain efficiency…and the friction involved…is not significantly impacted by lubrication even when there is no lubricant. Yes, there is a decrease in efficiency as shown in the speed/distance tests but the decrease is actually quite small. The Cycle About article wants to make the breathless claim that there is a 2.7% decrease in speed! But the real difference is around 0.8kph. Stop the presses! That is just an unacceptable result! It’s going to cost you what, 30 watts?

That may be important in a race but in real life, it’s hardly going to cause problems. Even in a race, that’s not going to be much of a consideration. Assuming that the racers are all competing in the same conditions, any losses due to contamination of the chain is going to have the same effect on each rider.

Overall, the Cycle About article (based on Friction Facts methods) confirms those ancient Johns Hopkins results. So what does the data say, again?

asgelle

That may be your supposition, but it certainly isn't Silca's belief. Their rational for stripping the chain is so that the added particulate can properly interact with the rough metal surface.

SpedFast

I barely warm mine enough to dump the solid wax out in one big clump and then just scrape the bottom with a table knife until I get to clean wax as most of the particulates have settled to the bottom before it cools. Easy and doesn't make a mess. Then just drop the clump of wax back in the pot for next time. If it gets low, I throw a couple more candles into the mix after making sure there's no wicks or metal bases on them.

phughes

cyccommute 

I haven’t seen anyone who actually has tested if the ultra cleaning methods actually do anything at all. The chain manufacturers…who know a bit more about the chains than Silca does…don’t suggest stripping the chain to a stupid level of cleanliness.

asgelle

Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. Silca has referred to exactly those tests (performed at Purdue, I believe).

cyccommute 

It works the same for claiming that elaborate cleaning procedures are necessary. Have you evidence that they are? What is gained? What is lost by not doing an extra bunch of steps?

How about a cite or a link? I can find related to chain cleaning, Silca, and Purdue.

bbbean 

If you think 30 watts is unimportant, we're not even living in the same universe.

To clarify once again - your 20 year old technical paper is interesting. I did a fair amount of work using infrared sensors in grad school and in some post graduate work in the earl 90s. I did try to get a copy of the full article, but they seem intent on being paid $25 since I'm not currently teaching or enrolled in a university. C'est la velo.

But our understanding of chain efficiency did not stop with that study. No science was settled. Given your own work in chemistry, you know that our understanding is perpetually evolving, and this is certainly true in the realm of bicycle technology. I'm going to take seriously any study that has a sound design, published procedures and analysis, and makes the authors available for questions.

I fully expect that in another 20 years, we'll understand more than we do today about chain efficiency. In the meantime, there is no reason t disregard replicable studies that show differences in efficiency between chains and chain lubes. At that time, someone citing trade testing from the mid 2020s will rightfully seem a little quaint.

Have a great day.

asgelle

It's been discussed in several Marginal Gains podcast. References might be posted in the show notes.

SoSmellyAir

Too late. I had already bought a bag during the aforementioned Gulf wax shortage.

I know (barely?) enough organic chemistry to follow your discussions on this subject and recognize that Gulf wax and Shimano factory "grease" are (to a large extent) cross-soluble. It is just that, prior to my acquisition of OMS, a waxed chain retained sufficient Shimano factory "grease" to be sticky to the touch and to external debris even after a short ride.

I bought my first liter of OMS from an art supply chain retailer; it was intended for people to clean their oil paint brushes. I have now used that up. Subsequently, I was able to buy two more quarts from Lowes: (1) a regular version (must be a glitch in Lowe's supply chain), which seems to work, and (2) a California-specific version, which I have not opened; it remains to be seen whether that works as well as regular OMS. (They have different MSDS.)

cyccommute 

Look at the speed difference presented that Cycling About article. 30 watts difference result in a 0.8kph difference. It’s not much. Hell, there is more variance in speed just from a random gust of wind than 0.8kph.

I to have no access anymore. I’ve requested one from ResearchGate but we’ll see.

Yes, science is evolving. But we seldom take huge leaps forward. The results from the Cycle About article are in the same range as the Johns Hopkins study which is more of confirmation of those oooooooold results than some kind of great leap forward.

I think you expecting way too much in the way of evolution of science. We might be able to more easily measure the chain efficiency but I really doubt there will be some kind of “Eureka!” moment in chains. There really hasn’t been one in the last 120 years or so.

cyccommute 

So show them. It shouldn’t be up to me to go wade through a bunch of podcasts that I know nothing about. You are the one making the claim, prove it.

asgelle

Or it's your job to educate yourself, not mine.

cyccommute 

Yes, the factory wax will retain more debris. It’s a soft wax somewhat similar to Vaseline. In terms of properties, it falls just above thick oil and a harder wax. It’s a bit more plastic than hard wax but not as mobile as oil. Grit will stick to it but not be pumped into the chain like oil does. It is messier than hard wax, however. I do strip it off of my chains before use to avoid cleaning up afterwards.

I can’t find a list of solvents that aren’t allowed in California so I’m not sure what other solvents you have available. Acetone, MEK, and denatured alcohol are not good choices as they are too polar to work on chain lubricants. You might try Klean-Strip Painter’s Solvent that seems to be available in San Diego. It’s a mixture of acetone, methyl acetate, and mineral spirits. They also seem to carry xylene. Both of these mixtures have a higher hazard level than straight mineral spirits in terms of flammability and toxicity. Use gloves, of course, but change the gloves often since both of these solvents are marginally incompatible with nitrile gloves.

If your “California-specific” mineral spirits is the “green” version, that’s a surfactant in water with mineral spirits and is basically worse than just about any water soluble degreaser.

cyccommute 

I have tried to find any mention of Purdue and Silca with regard to chain cleaning and found absolutely nothing. Makes me think you are misremembering something that you heard somewhere. You said it has been discussed in “several” podcasts. Should be easy to find to prove your point.

SoSmellyAir

Orange county is regulated by both the state as well as South Coast Air Quality Management District, which does not apply to San Diego, which I visit almost every month (between firm HQ and friends). The MSDS for what you linked has > 80% acetone, > 10% methyl acetate, and < 5% OMS. I have used pure acetone before, which was practically useless against Shimano factory grease, so I am not sure how much better this would work.

I wear the noticeably thick 6 mil to 8 mil nitrile gloves when I do garage organic chemistry and try to work fast without rushing.

The regulations must have changed again in 2024. Even the green, "slow-to-dissolve" version is no longer available in Orange County or San Diego. So I have ordered another liter of pure OMS from the art supply store.

cyccommute 

There is a solubility parameter (can’t remember the name right now) that describes how the addition of certain solvents to each other changes the insolubility of substances like mineral spirits. I invented a solvent system for wood pulping that uses an insoluble ketone (16%), ethanol or acetone (34%) and water (51%). It is single phase at temperatures up to 180°C and will dissolve lignin out of wood which is difficult to do. This painter’s solvent would work similarly.

By the way, the beauty of the system I invented was that by the addition of a bit of water, I could phase separate the mixture and the lignin…which is water insoluble…would go with the ketone, cleanly separating the lignin from the sugars that come out of the pulping. The lignin was mostly free of sugar which make downstream processing and use of the lignin much easier. I’m not suggesting you do a phase separation with this solvent, however.

The painter’s solvent is cheap enough that it would be worth trying. If it works, great! If it doesn’t work, well, you haven’t lost much.