phughes

This bears repeating. This is the only, proper way to clean a chain. Anything else and you just kidding yourself.

https://sheldonbrown.com/chainclean.html

ScottCommutes

That's how you do it. After a while, you will get a feel for it. All the dirt, grime, and metal particles that you are trying to remove will appear "black". When you're done, you want very little black stuff coming off the chain, all the links lubed, and any excess lube wiped away so it doesn't attract more gunk.

If you are new to this, I might suggest trying a product called "1-Step" that sprays on your chain - it cleans and lubricates in the same step. Good results for very little effort.

pdlamb

Of course this needs to be updated in this age of peened chain rivets; you either need 110 spare pins or 55 reusable chain links to reassemble nowadays.

Lucillle

Everyone has their own method. I like cleaning the chain with my Park chain cleaner using WD40, wipe off the chain and then lube with Chain-L. It works for me and pretty fast and easy too.

grumpus

"The perfect lube for occasional cyclists and bikes often put into storage" - doesn't sound like it's appropriate for regular 100 miles a week.

70sSanO

I have never wanted to use the best lube as it puts way to much pressure on me to correctly prep and apply it.

I started to use a dry lube (White Lightning) on my mtb a number of years ago. Since then I’ve been using it on my road bikes.

Every so often I haphazardly apply it and wipe off the excess. Seems to work as I’ve noticed the chain moves from cog to cog and ring to ring.

Sometimes a bit noisy, but it helps me stay awake on monotonous rides.

Biggest issue is when it is cold and the solids sink to the bottom of the bottle and I have to use a hair drying to warm the bottle up. That and it immediately turning solid on a cold chain.

I’m tempted to try WD-40, as that seems even easier, but the aerosol might be messier.

John

choddo

Since starting waxing this bike’s chain 3 weeks ago I have been able to do 1 60km ride, discovered a siezed bottom bracket, replaced it, discovered siezed freehub bearings, replaced those, and now discovered headset bearing is loose. Now googling Trek checkpoint SL headset bearings.

Chain looks lovely though.

Duragrouch

I'll buy that. I think cautions of decades ago regarding aircraft maintenance are completely valid, they don't screw around, but a) bike chain is a less critical application, b) I really think WD-40 must have changed their formulation due to those cautions, because c) I haven't experienced it drying to a varnish as had been warned many decades past. It's seems not unlike many "light" chain lubes. I would only say that it's still oily enough to pick up dirt (unlike wax), and I doubt it provides the wear inhibition of better lubricants; I don't think this will be noticed in average use, but on a touring bike with a lot of climbs, I think it may. It does wash off nice; Decades ago when I would find a decent bike at the pawn shop, just needed a little fixing and cleaning to sell, spraying WD-40 on the greasy parts, quick scrub with a toothbrush, and then it would rinse off pretty clean.

Kontact 

Seems weird to use WD40 when there are other actual light oils that are priced and packaged similarly. Like Triflow.

cyccommute 

Honestly there is a whole lot of very bad information out there on chain lubricants. Perhaps the biggest one is this enduring myth that WD-40 isn’t a lubricant. Yes, WD-40 has a significant amount of solvent in it but so do lots of bicycle chain lubricants, especially if they are aerosol based. Let’s look at the SDS for some lubricants like WD-40, TriFlow, and WD-40 motorcycle chain lube (aerosol). Each is a mixture a petroleum based oil and a solvent, along with some other stuff. Let’s look at the major oil in each one. I won’t go through each one in the mixtures but here’s a general outline.

WD-40 contains “Petroleum Base Oil” of which CAS No. 64742-56-9 is one. From Chemical substances, Cas No. 64742-56-9 is described as

TriFlow contains “Heavy Naphthenic Petroleum Oil” which has a CAS No. 64742-52-5 is described as

The WD-40 motorcycle chain lubricant contains “Distillates, hydrotreated heavy paraffinic” with a CAS No. 64742-54-7 described as

As can be seen although the CAS number is different, the materials are essentially the same. Proportions are slightly different from lubricant to lubricant with TriFlow having 50 to 75% oil with 25 to 50% solvent and the WD-40 having 35% oil with the balance being solvent. But that is the only real difference. Many people say that WD-40 is only a solvent but that is as incorrect as saying that it doesn’t contain a lubricant.

Personally, I don’t use oil nor would I use an aerosol application for any chain lubricant…TriFlow makes a aerosol spray as well…but any of these (as well as a whole host of other lubricants) contain oil and is a suitable lubricant.

Duragrouch

I could be wrong, but I thought original TriFlow of many years ago, was advertised as teflon within a carrier fluid, although honestly, I never saw any evidence of teflon left behind after evaporation.

Regardless, practically *anything* can be used as chain lube in a pinch, even vegetable oil, though when I lubed hair clippers with that in a pinch, it eventually dried to a sticky gum, stopping the clippers, I had to pull apart the blades (not hard) and clean and lube with a light petroleum oil. So for me, it's still good to know:
- What oils work best for durability, because that's the main point of lubing the chain, is there conclusive info about advantages of thick (lubricity, durability, stays on) and thin (may not grab as much dirt, may "flush" better) oils, water resistance, etc., and what are bargains (such quart container of an auto lube for same price as 4 oz bottle of bike lube, for equivalent lube).
- How does wax (hot melt, and cold applied in a solvent) stack up, and are some of the newer formulations that include teflon powder, moly disulfide and tungsten disulfide, superior in durability or friction (this last part I think is only of value to fanatic racers, at least by the hype of the sellers of such things, I certainly would not notice the difference in drag).
- Relative to the above, what are good practices (such as, in my experience, for all oils that turn to paste eventually from emusifying(?) with built up metal particles, needing a complete solvent flush before applying new oil, or wax that don't seem to require that).

The problem is that all of us are dealing with anecdotal evidence. I thought someone had mentioned some outfit that did formalized testing, I'd like to know that and whether it is objective like a consumer reports for chain lube, or just hyping a particular brand.

Most of the topics on Bike Forums are answered fairly conclusively, there are clear tradoffs, but the truth is acknowledged. Chain lube seems to be a more opaque subject, affected by different use conditions, perceptions, anecdotal evidence. But it need not be, if anyone out there is doing objective testing.

There's a fantastic website, about knife steels, started by a metallurgist, one of the best websites I have ever seen; Every metallurgist is obsessed with making a better knife steel. This guy, empowered by a theory for a better steel, and armed with newer powerful software that predicts properties based on content, developed a superior steel*, hitting it perfect on the first try, unheard of. But he had objective data to prove it. And then he expanded the site to testing every known imaginable knife steel. He even bought a CATRA(?) test machine for himself (broken and fixed it), which takes a coupon of steel, sharpened to various edge angles (and also documents the effects of that factor), and tests them in this machine using standardized cardboard pieces that have a specific silicon content, for hundreds of cuts, for checking edge sharpness durability, and also tests for edge stability (toughness, resistance to edge chipping), and then he graphs and explains in incredible detail. This guy is awesome.

That's what we need for chain lube. Standardized test under specific chain tension, standardized chain, standardized sprockets (which would also need to be replaced for each test), ideally also capable of environmental testing on same rig.

* But due to the processing, this premium steel is like 10X the material cost, so still the purview of custom knife makers. But then he also published an article, "What is the best budget knife steel?", that uses conventional steel processing.

Kai Winters

Puh leeeze there is no "best" knife steel...they all have pluses and minuses...
I dove down the 'full immersion' wax method and am happy with the results. I use Silca double top secret, pinky swear, etc. wax and really don't care what anyone thinks.
Do your thing, use whatever you want to clean and lubricate your chain. It doesn't matter to me and I'm not going to tell anyone what is 'better' or 'best'.
I likely used whatever my dad had in the cellar...yes cellar...we did not have a basement...we had a cellar...likely it was 3 in 1 oil or something like that in a metal container. That was near 60 years ago so my memory isn't great about what I used to lube my bike's chain way back then.

Kontact 

What such a test is going to fail to capture is all the imperfect cleaning and lubing that go along with buying and maintaining a pre-lubed factory chain. What's the best lube for Shimano's factory lube? How about SRAM's sticky stuff? If you get the chain totally clean using warm gasoline, what lubes fully penetrate? Which lubes work well with the leftover lubrication from normal solvents?

Many tests have been performed, and straight paraffin is among the best possible lubes. But I use it because it doesn't stick to the cat, or vice versa. How to quantify convenience?

Duragrouch

I used to use 3 in 1 until I realized it doesn't have anti-wear additives, a lube test I read years ago said that's what made the biggest difference in their wear tests among various lubes.

Knife steel: Not to get off on a tangent... used to be, you either had high hardness and edge retention, or high toughness, but not both. Often had to accept moderate on both. Powder-metallurgy steels have changed this, especially among stainless steels. This metalurgist theorized that there was too much chrome, which has an affinity for carbon, would form chrome-carbides, decent hardness but not great; He figured if he could cut back on the chrome to *just barely* "saturate" the iron for excellent corrosion resistance, there would be no excess chrome to link up with the carbon, which would then make the carbon link up with vandium, and vanadium carbides are VERY hard, much harder than the surrounding matrix, think stones in concrete, you can't even use a cheap aluminum-oxide sharpening stone because it's not hard enough, you need to use carborundum or a diamond-dust plate. So he runs the numbers in (Thermo-Calc?), predicts excellent results. Problem is, if you make it like normal steel, liquid metal poured into a ingot mold, it doesn't work; The ingot hardens from the outside to in, and as the outside hardens, the chrome "steals" carbon from the liquid metal further in, and the mix does not stay homogeneous. So, here's what they do: They take the molten metal and spray it out, atomize it using air jets, into *tiny* particles, which immediately solidify in perfect homogeniety, and fall into a bin. Then they take the powder, put it into a mold, squeeze HARD from all directions, and heat up to the forging temperature, and the particles all fuse, in that perfect mix (and no porosity, like a sintered bronze fuel filter). Hot Isostatic Pressing, or HIP. Then they send to the rolling mill to make into plate, and knife makers cut out knives. This alloy is not suitable for forging, that screws up the mix. Metal removal process only. Then it requires very careful heat treating, not small-shop stuff, real pros. The result is a stainless steel almost as corrosion resistant as saltwater dive knives (9/10), RC65, and very high toughness. Very hard to get this combo. But the process drives the cost way up, not what's in the steel. By the way, there have been other powder metallurgy steels for decades now, showed improvement, but not this good. This steel is known as MagnaCut. This guy could not do a test run himself, he had to convince a big P-M company to do it, but they liked what they saw on paper and agreed. Took like a year to get the melt/powder/HIP done, then like another 6 months to get it rolled to plate. But he nailed it on the first try, again, big help from Thermo-Calc (I think?) software.

I don't want to spend $300 for a small outdoors knife. So I search on the site, "best ingot steel" (conventional processing), and he has already written an article, "What's the best budget knife steel?" And the first criteria is, conventional ingot process. Next, he wants good corrosion resistance, and good combination of edge retention (hardness) and stability (toughness). A number of good steels, but one was a standout, 14C28N, an alloy developed by Sandvik (Sweden), and another close substitute. RC60 (a good deal harder than my Wusthof and Henckels kitchen knives), 6X the toughness of same (really helps reduce edge chipping, upon close examination of my knives I see a ton of tiny half-circle chips, no abuse, very careful treatment, probably overly large carbides popping off), and good corrosion resistance. I do a search for kitchen knives in such, where? CHINA. My German knives were a premium steel (X50Cr15MoV/1.4116, commonly referred to in cutlery as "German" steel it is used so widely) perhaps 40 years ago, but man, have they gotten lax, for China to be producing knives of a better steel (haven't seen the finishing quality of them yet).

The website is knifesteelnerds.com, I have no association with it, but I've been very impressed. One commenter said he was hyping his own creation with MagnaCut, but everyone else said he backed up claims with test results. He also reveals a ton of detailed process information, that's generous. And again, tons of valuable info about other alloys. He's put a lot of work into tests and the website. Trust me, you'll be impressed.

Duragrouch

Several places have said that the grease that comes on a new chain is great stuff, so don't wash it off, and I believe it. The problem is there is no way to replenish a thick grease into a chain without creating a giant mess; They put the grease on during assembly, not after assembled. So you start with that grease. But once the chain is used a long time, that grease will hold metal particles, so it's the lesser of evils to rinse it off with solvent and start fresh and clean with some other lube.

Any liquid lube will penetrate the links instantly, there's a lot of play around the rollers. Same for melted wax, you just need to leave it in long enough to melt the hard wax still inside the links, and a bit of agitation if possible to have any metal particles fall out from inside the rollers, but usually this is much less with wax.

Solvent is exactly that, solvent, which means it's compatible with the lube, provided it's in small amounts. Engine oil gets slowly contaminated with gasoline over time due to ring blow-by, not a problem, unless it's a lot and it thins the oil. I clean off my gear lube with mineral oil (just because it's cheap from leftover tiki torch fuel), and I usually do this on a rainy day because giving it a day to dry, and it will mostly dry off, just a very slight oil film from lube contamination in the solvent when cleaning. But even if a little solvent present, not a problem with the lube, and it should evaporate out of the lube in a few days.

dedhed

I can see you're new around here.

dedhed

4:15
​​​​​​

choddo

Bizarrely captivating

cyccommute 

A large part of the problem is the imprecision of the language used. The “grease” on a new chain isn’t “grease” such as bearing grease. “Grease” is semisolid to solid emulsion of an oil in something that disperses the oil in a thickening agent. Often it is a surfactant (soap) and oil that remains as a semisolid over a very wide range of temperatures. The video that dedhed linked to shows the chain being run through a liquid that and, if I recall correctly, it mentions that the bath is warm to hot. “Grease” is usually formulated to not become liquid even at high temperatures. It will shear under stress and become plastic but it usually isn’t melted. The “grease” in the video on chains is actually a wax as is all factory lubricant. It is a soft wax similar to Vaseline. It would be relatively easy to replicate the application of the factory lubricant and many people do…although most people us a much harder wax for good or ill.

kcjc

I would make sure the Simple Green is removed from the chain as much as possible. I normally hose it down. To make things easier on me between washes, I switched to Rock 'N Roll and skipped the Simple Green.

Kontact 

So you would recommend a multi-day cleaning/drying event, rather than following the manufacturer's instructions or spending 10 minutes waxing?

phughes

Remove chain, place in washing machine on delicate, hot water, and sixteen Tide pods. Rinse fifteen times to be sure to get all the soap out. Then dry on low to prevent shrinkage. After it is completely dry, place it back in the washing machine. Remove waterlines from washer as a precaution, then fill washing machine with oil. Set it to delicates. Let it agitate, then spinout. Remove immediately after the first spinout.

Or, wipe chain periodically, then apply the oil of your choice.

bikerbob38

"The problem is that all of us are dealing with anecdotal evidence. I thought someone had mentioned some outfit that did formalized testing, I'd like to know that and whether it is objective like a consumer reports for chain lube, or just hyping a particular brand"

I tried posting a link in this thread but I was advised that I could not do so because I was a newbie.

So, with that said, I have found that Omni Calculator has a Bicycle Lubricant Cost-to-Run Calculator. You enter the parameters that apply to you and then there is a list of 33 lubricants among you can pick and the calculator rates that lubricant as bad or decent or Excellent

There is another one called ZeroFrictionCycling that has very comprehensive test results for, I estimate, about 40 chain lubricants.

Troul 

surprised a production made carbon fiber 12 speed chain doesn't already exist.

base2 

The cool thing about ZFC is you can download the data as an Excel file and really dig into the methods, notes, data and conclusions. Truly as transparent as it gets.

From this transparency you can make insights like when Squirt doesn't perform as well as expected in testing because he treats it like a standard oil based lubricant instead of following the drip on, run backwards, drip on again and let completely dry before use that the instructions on the bottle prescribe.

Another insight concerns Wippermann chains roller and pin wear providing unexpected results in the way they are worn. I bring this up because a confounding factor in all the lubrication testing is the metallurgy of the chain used in the lubrication test. High quality chains tend to be made of harder steels and made to higher tolerances. The price tends to reflect this fact. Likewise cheap chains tend to be made using low hardness steels and to loose tolerances. I've come across KMC chains that measure 0.5% elongation straight out of the OEM package. That's already worn out!

I use Molten Speed Wax per ZFC's test methods on high quality Wippermann stainless steel SX chains. I have yet to wear one out to 0.5% Some of them have in excess of 5,000 miles on them.