kingston 

I've been waxing chains for several years and can say with absolute certainty that each step in the MSW cleaning process removes more gunk from the chain. By the end there is nothing left. I can wipe the chain down with a white rag and it stays clean. Admittedly, I have no idea whether or not a clean chain is necessary for wax to adhere to it. I honestly never thought to question that advice since it is so ubiquitous and seems to make intuitive sense. Why would MSW recommend such an elaborate cleaning method for their product if it doesn't have any benefit? Wouldn't they sell more product if they advised people to just buy a new chain and toss it in the wax?

I don't think I've seen anyone claim that you must use a crock pot. I use one because for eight bucks I can just leave it full of wax. I never have to clean it, and my wife doesn't complain that I'm cooking bike parts in her kitchen. I just drop the chain in the pot and walk away so it's irrelevant to me that it takes a few hours for the wax to melt since the whole process requires less than 10 minutes of effort.

GhostRider62

1. You did not look very hard

2. You get what you pay for. Each chain takes 150-200 hours of testing. Nobody uses 8 or 9 speed chains, outside the Co-op world.

Zerofriction has given my important data on different lubes and different chains in adverse conditions and as someone who rides in such conditions for long distances, there data is unique. Nobody conducts such tests.

Note that he tests wear at seven different sections of the chain. I am lazy, I just measure the whole chain, which is far more accurate and precise than than doing one 12 inch piece trying to eyeball 1/32 vs 1/16th. My last chain was binned at just over 10,000 miles with 0.4% "stretch"

https://zerofrictioncycling.com.au/w...-Protocol-.pdf

cyccommute 

Yes, I did. That is not a “protocol”. It’s a sales pitch. There are few details in all that tree murdering. Nothing about load, duration, repetition, etc. Those are all details that should be in any protocol.

No one uses 8 and 9 speed chains except all those lower level bikes with Sora, Claris, Alivio, Altus, Microshift, etc. There are still millions of new bikes sold with 8 and 9 speed chains. There are millions of bikes out in the world that still use 8 and 9 speed chains. There are even a fair number of new bikes equipped with 7 speed systems which use 8 speed chains. Considering that more low end bikes with 7, 8, and 9 speed systems get sold than higher end offerings, I say there are more 8 and 9 speed chains used than 11 and 12.

But you are missing my point. All of the reported mileages resulting in 0.5% stretch are far lower than what most people report. The 8 and 9 speed chains just happen to be extremely low.

If the data is flawed, it doesn’t matter that they are the only ones doing the tests. 7, 8, and 9 speed chains shouldn’t be any more delicate than 10, 11, and 12 speed chains. Most reports from the field go the other direction with 10, 11, and 12 speed chains being more prone to wear due to the thin nature of the plates. The instructions for the Park Tool says

That indicates to me that the chain (and/or components) is less robust.

Although I think that little wear over that long a distance is a bit of a stretch, you should be the one disagreeing with Zero Friction’s testing. The greatest mileage to 0.5% elongation is 1500 km or 900 miles. Most people report 3+ times that for chain wear and you report 10+ times that distance. If they can’t get the average and report some chains not even being able to get a few weeks of normal wear, they are doing something wrong.

cyccommute 

Good! I encourage experimentation.

cyccommute 

I did the same roughly 25 years ago. I, however, don’t use hot wax. I use solvent wax which is just as clean and much less fuss. Prior to that I was using Phil Wood Tenacious Oil which is second only to motor oil in messiness.

Solvent wax, by the way, doesn’t need to be reapplied as often as many people think. I get around 700 miles between applications. Even when touring in the eastern US, I didn’t have to apply more often than 700 miles. I did a 1500 mile tour around Lake Erie and applied it at the beginning of the tour, in the middle (after a long rainy day) and at the end.

GhostRider62

I spent decades reviewing and approving protocols in regulated. I did not say it was a protocol but nonetheless, I have seen worse ones on products you might have installed in your body. That is a fact. You asserted you could find 'Little how they arrive at those results" The link provided is an overview of the testing and the rationale for it. Nothing more and nothing less.

I assert you are wrong. There is a lot of information provided how testing is conducted and they apply it consistently from chain to chain. Free. No charge. Admittedly, the website is sloppy and one has to read a little bit.

BTW.....what are you talking about comparing their results to mine. I did not routinely ride in the conditions under which they test. I sometimes ride under those conditions and if I do, the chain gets cleaned thoroughly and rewaxed. I also ride in low load conditions, my average power might be 115 watts compared to 250 watts. I rarely push the limits of wear on my chains, if I do, it is by accident. I try to ditch them as 0.5%. I suspect you have spent less time reading how they test than writing a response to me.

cyccommute 

Exactly! An elaborate 7 step procedure like the one above has never had the steps tested for efficacy. It would be almost impossible to run a full experimental design for all the parameters. It would involve 36 separate experiments (forget the hang dry step) with some replicates. At 3000 miles per test, 108,000 miles of testing without any replicates. It’s not something that would give results quickly.

And after all that testing, you’ll likely find that the chain lasts about the same.

cyccommute 

Zero Friction calls it a “protocol”…in the link you provided. I spent decades developing and writing protocols. I know what a “protocol” is and how to write one. It should have detailed step-by-step instructions with evidence that the protocol works. Each step should be extensively tested to see if it works and, more importantly, if it is necessary.

That’s your opinion. I agree that the website is sloppy. It’s hard to read and you have to wade through a whole lot of extraneous (and repetitive) information to find anything useful. The fact that their chain wear results are so far off what most people report makes the information even less useful.

I’m not sure where you ride but I ride in all kinds of conditions. From dusty to rain to snow with touring loads, no loads, mountain biking, and mountain biking with loads. I won’t estimate what my power output is but it is probably average, whatever that is. I discard my chains at 0.75% on a Park chain checker because that’s what the instructions on the checker say to do for a 9 speed chain. I get about 3000 miles per chain. Not what you get but far more than what Zero Friction reports.

Of course I spent less time reading their “protocol” than I did writing a response. There is a whole lot of fat and gristle in that “protocol” and not a whole lot of meat. That’s one of the reasons I don’t pay much attention to Zero Friction. There’s a whole lot of useless material to wade through for not much useful stuff.

Schlafen

Lol, where is this place with random sparks everyone is talking about whenever petrol comes in a discussion?

500ml of petrol in a jam jar with the lid screwed on doesn't generate enough vapour to explode or catch on fire after you agitate the contents except if you remove the lid and check how clean the chain inside the glass jar is, with an open flame. Otherwise every car fueling up would leave the petrol station as a fireball.

I mean, I know some people are dense but come on, how are they riding a bicycle in that condition?

If petrol is 'scary' use diesel.

cyccommute 

Any number of places. Sparks, pilot lights, some idiot smoking, etc. The point is that the flash point of gasoline…or petrol, if you prefer…is so low that there is no temperature where it can be used without the risk of ignition.

At some point, the chain will have to be removed from the jar. It can’t make the bike go if it is sealed in a jar. Out of the jar, there is a significant amount of gasoline on the chain which evaporates and offers an fuel source for ignition. The jar is also vulnerable to breakage or even just getting knocked over. But buddiiee is talking about a whole lot more gasoline than 500ml. He is cleaning chains in coffee cans which are usually have a volume of 64 oz (1.9L) and are large enough to hold 2lb of bad coffee. They have a 5.125” (13 cm) mouth and usually have a plastic lid. And he is soaking multiple chains. I know exactly what he is talking about because my father used to do just this kind of stupid stuff with gasoline.

Fueling fires aren’t unknown. Fires from fuel tank ruptures in cars isn’t unknown. There are roughly 85,000 car fires in the US per year. There are roughly 35,000 house fires caused by gasoline in the US (52% of flammable liquid caused fires) per year. There are 100,000 gasoline (61% of flammable liquid fires) caused fires in business per year. It’s not a substance that should be handled without extreme caution.

I agree. How could anyone have a such a cavalier attitude to something that is close to an explosive.

Diesel would be a far better choice than gasoline. It doesn’t evaporate cleanly however. Mineral spirits does a better job without leaving an oily residue or, more importantly, burning down your house

Schlafen

Had a long winded reply typed and the page refreshed, can't be asked to type all that again.

Anyways, I do have friends that visit regularly and some which lived in the states for a few years, they did mention that even though it is the land of the free, most people live in fear and there's a lot of fear mongering going on. So yeah, keep doing what you're doing: petrol = bad and scary, make big fire, don't touch, make ouchy Even though that 87 pump 'gas' is kind of a joke, lol.

bbbean 

Look harder. They've been interviewed and featured on podcasts, and have discussed their methodology at length. Their reputation is earned and solid. Or don't. It's your chain.

[QUOTE=cyccommute;22461762if someone…manufacturer, testing lab, or home mechanic…suggests a long involved multistep process for chain cleaning, they had better have good reasons for doing all those steps. I have yet to see anyone provide a reason. I also have yet to see anyone actually test if those steps result in different results than something less involved.[/QUOTE]

Depends on what you mean by "long involved multistep process". Zero Friction recommends a soak in solvents for a new chain, but then just throws the chain into a pot of hot wax for reapplications. Silca recommends a similar deep cleaning for initial wax application, but then simply recommends a short soak or rinse in citrus degreaser for subsequent rewaxings.

FWIW, both of those have done multiple interviews where they discuss chain constriction, the need to get lubricant to the actual friction points, and the need to seal out grit, water, and dirt from the inner workings of the chain.

Of course, it's your chain. If this all sounds like hogwash to you, then do what you like. if you're not racing or obsessive about maintenence, it's probably a moot point. We're in the land of marginal gains.

bbbean 

I have never seen anyone argue that you "must" use a crockpot. It is simply a popular option. Regular pots, sous vide bags, drip on waxes, etc are all fine and dandy..

DaveSSS 

Using isopropyl alcohol as a last step for chain cleaning makes no sense since it has 9-30% water in it and it's not a solvent that dissolves or mixes paraffin. It doesn't make wax adhere better. Softer waxes are worth looking into. I add 20-30% heavy gear lube to grocery store paraffin to soften it and improve lubricity. I don't hot dip either. I dissolve the paraffin and oil with naphtha and apply it as a drip lube. There's far less wax to flake off. Depending on how much solvent is used, it must be warmed to 80-90F to become a liquid with water-like viscosity. The chain also has to be fairly warm or it will harden the lube before it can penetrate inside the rollers. I relube at least 3 times before removing a chain for cleaning, so I swap chains far less often that I would with hot dipping.

cyccommute 

In other words, ya got nothin’.

Being knowledgeable and informed is not “fear”. It’s quite the opposite. People who are ignorant about the dangers of flammable liquids are far more likely to harm themselves and others. All flammable petroleum products should be handled with care but gasoline should be handled with extreme care and certainly not with a cavalier attitude.

Shows how much you know. Octane number is calculated differently between Europe and the US and Canada. The difference in calculation means that the value Europeans use is inflated over that of the US but the two values are essentially the same.

cyccommute 

Yes, it’s a chain. You can do just about anything to a chain (or nothing) and it will last about the same mileage. Zero Friction’s own results show that. In fact, I question their results and methodology because they get far lower longevity results than people do in the field. If you can’t replicate what people get out in the real world, your model is bad and needs to be reassessed.

And they give no reason nor justification for their process. Nor, again, do their results suggest that doing all that work provides any better results. If you are going to do something that involves lots of work, there should be a reason and it should result in significant increases in chain durability. If a single step of cleaning gives the same results as 7 step process, why perform the extra 6 steps?

I agree that the chain should just be thrown into the hot wax after an initial (and single step) cleaning. But that is not what people are saying above. Some (many?) are performing this kind of cleaning each time they wax. Mostly because they don’t understand the protocol. It’s not all their fault because the protocol is poorly documented and tested.

That’s even dumber. Citrus degreaser is, essentially, a detergent. As a detergent, it needs to be removed after use which means washed with water. Now you have to do something to get rid of the water. More steps for no reason.

Lots of electrons are killed about the discussion concerning the need to “get lubricant to the actual friction points”. All of them seem to assume that a chain is some kind of tightly sealed mechanism which makes getting lubricant to where it is needed is next to impossible. At the same time they will discuss how the chain is this very open system that is easily contaminated by grit (same as dirt) and water. If grit and water can get into the chain where it does damage, getting lubricant into the chain is far simpler since lubricant molecules are several orders of magnitude smaller than grit.

Although not for the reasons you think, I fully agree. Nothing done to a chain will significantly increase (nor decrease) chain life. As someone said in the shop today, “if one lube was significantly better, we wouldn’t have all these chain lubricants.”

Ah, the vieled insult. No, I don’t race. I do things that no racer would ever consider doing…like loading up enough stuff on a bike to use it as my home for weeks on end. I don’t obsess about maintenance because I’ve made choices that reduce maintenance. The whole being obsessive about cleaning chains generally comes from using oil based lubricants and the need to clean up the mess on a weekly…or even daily…basis. I use solvent wax which is just as clean as hot wax, generally provides the same results, and is easier to refresh if needed. The chain is clean and the rest of the drivetrain is clean. No need to obsess over something that isn’t an issue.

icemilkcoffee 

The Zero friction site says that KMC chains are not compatible with waxing. Has anyone found that to be the case?
https://zerofrictioncycling.com.au/wax-at-home/

SJX426 

@Cyclcommuter - Which solvent wax do you like to use?

cyccommute 

They work just fine with White Lightning in my experience so it shouldn’t make any difference with hot wax. Wax (or any lubricant) isn’t “repelled” by the chain or coating. It may flake off because the coating is smoother than bare metal but the wax only coats the chain and doesn’t really form any kind of bond to the chain in either case.

This is yet another case of why I don’t take too much stock in what Zero Friction says. The coating doesn’t cause excessive wear in the chain. The quip in their post about excessive cleaning need for SRAM chains is silly as well.

cyccommute 

White Lightning Clean Ride and Rock ‘N’ Roll Gold. Both work the same and, in my experience, are equivalent to oil based lubricants in longevity.

kingston 

I have used KMC chains with hot wax and haven't noticed any difference from shimano or campy. Since I follow the MSW cleaning instructions the chains are all clean when I start, so I'm not sure what coating they're talking about.

bbbean 

<Bunch of "I reject your sources" deleted>

No insult, veiled or otherwise. Racers and maintenance obsessives have specific needs, just as touring cyclists, commuters, and/or and casual weekend riders have their own unique set of needs There's no perceived superiority in being any particular type of cyclist.

Now - I'm off to perform a bunch of maintenance that I am absolutely convinced saves me watts of resistance and extends the life of my components. You are free to believe I am wasting my time. Have a great day.

cyccommute 

KMC makes some chains that have a (likely) teflon coating to prevent rust. In all honesty, the coating at contact points probably doesn’t last too long but it keeps the chain from rusting in general. Zero Friction is implying that the coating will prevent lubrication but they are incorrect because they don’t understand that the wax doesn’t adhere to the metal any better (or worse) than it would to the coating. I’m sure they see the wax flaking off the outside of the chain and think that the wax isn’t doing anything inside the chain. That’s just not true. Most any lubricant is wasted because it covers parts of the chain that don’t need lubrication.

kingston 

Yes that makes sense. I just looked at the KMC website and they do say that some of their chains series have coatings while others make no mention of coatings. In any case, I've waxed and used up a bunch of KMC chains of many varieties, including the ones with coatings, and they all seem to work the same and last about as long as other chains.

cyccommute 

If you look at Zero Friction’s data, their comments about KMC don’t seem to have any evidence backing them up. They have some KMC chains that perform better than average, some within the average, and some below. Since they don’t report variance, we really can’t tell if the below average KMC performance is significant or not.