2_i 

Mike,

most often I ride a loaded bike on tires with kevlar. The tires indicate should indicate that the efficiency is secondary for me to the reliability and to reduced maintenance. With the chain, as little lubing and other maintenance as possible has been for me a priority. Experimenting with lubrication I came to the stage that it ceased to be an issue - I can live with a lubrication every few months. Currently I get 2500+ miles out of a chain and, if possible, I would like to increase it. The longer the expected lifetime, the less often I need to check the chain elongation. Running over the useful lifetime of a chain can easily turn for me into a disaster. I put together cassettes out of individual cogs and a ruined cassette becomes an endeavor.

Within this thread, I learned that it is possible to reduce chain wear chemically. Also checking chain tests, I realized that I ride a less than optimal chain brand and I could increase the chain longevity by switching the brand with just little extra cost. Thus, this thread has been totally beneficial.

Al1943

My chain life has varied between 5000 miles and 8000 miles.
If I could trade some mileage for measurable improved efficiency I would. Don't get me wrong, I certainly would have some limit on how much mileage I'd be willing to give up. The bigger question is how much improvement in efficiency can we expect from a better chain lube.

Efficiency at all costs? No. It's an interesting concept. I choose to ride tires that are more efficient than heavy puncture resistant tires because I can keep my flats to an acceptable frequency. From bicycle riding I doubt that we could measure an efficiency difference between any of the better oil based chain lubes. I'm sure there are some differences but I'd bet that they are too small to measure, especially in an uncontrolled environment. I believe the efficiency in tires probably could be measured.

I have done some minor racing at the local level but not in a few years. I need to be efficient just to be able to keep up with the groups I ride with. And I like to take my turns pulling at the front and I hate to be dropped.

Rust, I haven't seen any since 1998 when I started riding nickel plated chains .

I've tried several bicycle specific chain lubes, including wax base and oil base. I have not tried Chain-L yet. My favorite "off-the-shelf" chain lube is Purple Extreme but I'm now using a home brew of about 4 parts mineral spirits to one part synthetic motor oil that I think is just as good.

And no, I don't think spit would be efficient.

edit: I had not read 2_i's post before posting mine. It's interesting that he also used tire selection as an example of efficiency choices.

Paul Y.

I've been using Chain L for 2 seasons summer and winter.
The aroma grows on you, it assures me the stuff is still
working after weeks and weeks of wiping it off. I put it
on a clean chain with a toothbrush. It goes on thick but
I wipe off excess with a clean cloth. (don't use your own
toothbrush use a used one)

Scooby214

I was already used to the smell of Chain-L, as it is similar to gear oil or bearing grease. I have spent too many years working on classic cars to be concerned about a bit of petroleum scent.

I never thought of using the toothbrush to apply Chain-L. That's a good idea. I've only used a toothbrush to aid in cleaning the chain before lubing it.

simplify

This is a great thread. I have been using Chain-L for several months in all sorts of conditions (okay, not snow...), and it has proven itself superior to anything I've used before--and I've used pretty much all of them, wet or dry. My chains in the past were showing enough wear to require changing well before they hit 2000 miles (it's very sandy here), but since switching to Chain-L, my chains (three bikes) are all at or over 4000 miles with NO measurable wear. I absolutely did not expect that any lube could make such a difference.

When I apply it, I put a very small drop on the top if each roller, one section of chain at a time, and let those drops slowly penetrate completely before I move the chain to the next section. Sure it's more time consuming than just squirting lube on the whole chain all at once, BUT it only needs to be done every three months (with my mileage) instead of every three weeks like my old lube.

I clean the chain thoroughly every time it's re-lubed, but this can also contribute to stuff getting inside the chain, no matter how good you are at cleaning your chain or what method you use. So a longer lasting lube means less frequent deep-cleaning (just wipe down the outside of the chain between rides) and I think that also contributes to longer life.

The drivetrain is so quiet and smooth, more than any other lube I've used. Better performance as well as longer chain life. I'm a convert.

rekmeyata

I put two new chains on two of my bikes this last spring and decided to use Chain-L on those two. One of the chains now has 1800 miles on it and there is no stretch whatsoever according a Park tool. The Chain-L keeps the chain silent and it seems to run smoother, and the chains look new. I haven't had any issues with rust, but that's not really fair qualification for Chain-L since I've never had a chain rust in 45 years of riding! If you keep the chain cleaned and lubed then rust should be a non event. Chain life is still in question since I usually get about 8,000 to 12,000 miles on my chains, I still have a ways to go before I figure that part out.

The only other lube that I used that I was impressed with was Finish Line Ceramic which I'm still using on my other bikes. I thought I would never find any lube better then that stuff, but I have with Chain-L...at least until the wear information comes in.

milmo

...referring to the JHU study.

This statement about a finding of no difference in efficiency appears a number of times on this thread, but it's just not true. The study found a 2.3% difference in efficiency between a lubed (Pedros Syn lube) and un-lubed chain @100 watts input, 52x15, 60rpm.

To put that in some perspective, if you're in a group ride going up a 1 mile long 3% grade and can put 250 watts to the rear wheel with an un-lubed chain and your exact twin is in the same ride with a lubed chain putting 2% more power to the rear wheel, 255 watts, at the same effort he'll get to the top 64 feet ahead of you (see https://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesSpeed_Page.html to play around with different power/speed scenarios). If you're the weak rider in your group that could easily mean being dropped, or not. And that's just one, short, shallow hill. If the total elevation gain over your entire ride is just 1500 feet the difference at the end will be about 200 yards.

Choosing the right lube is equally important. The Pedros Syn lube was 1.7% more efficient than the Castrol dry lube and 1.5% more efficient than White Lightening.

If you're of the mindset "what's 1 or 2%" when you think about chain lube then you'll probably be of that mindset when it comes to tire selection (another 2 to 5 watts), wheels ( 4 to 8 watts among everyday non-exotics), and particularly perceived minutia like where you carry your drink bottle(s). Taken individually these are small things, collectively they're not just 60 feet on one small hill but hundreds. It makes a difference.

2_i 

I think you read the data incorrectly. For the specific conditions, the chain lubed by Pedro's Syn lube is 0.2% LESS efficient than a chain without lube. I am looking at Tables 1 and 2 in the Human Power paper.

However, in general I think that one should interpret those data in a different way. The study does not find a systematic advantage to using a lube, as far as efficiency is concerned, within the precision of the study. If you look at individual cases, a lube is usually worse and in one case it wins. There are factors that are likely not well understood that may affect the outcome. Thus, if you carry a measurement at one speed for a particular configuration, you may resonantly induce oscillations of the chain and those affect efficiency. If you put one lube or another on the chain, resonance frequencies change and efficiency changes. In real-life riding, the pace will be constantly varying, so resonance oscillations might matter less - their effect will be averaged. Primarily, you should be looking whether there is a systematic advantage to a lube, beyond a single case. If anything, the lubes come out worse within the quoted values. However, the researchers presumably had more measurements than they put into the paper. I would take their word for this that they saw no advantage to the lubes.

HillRider

I'll accept your other power consumption numbers for tires, and aerodynamic refinements but I think this value for wheel is much too high even for properly adjusted steel cup-and-cone bearings. I know that they are so easy to rotate, spin-down very slowly and will pendulum after they come to a stop to let even a very small imbalance end up at the bottom so I can't believe they consume even close to 4 watts.

Can you document this value and does it include aero drag from the spokes as well as hub friction?

rekmeyata

When it comes to lube I don't care about the drag issue primarily, I care about the wear issue primarily.

milmo

Go to page 7 of that issue and read the section titled "Lubrication". Table 2 gives the efficiency ratings of the 3 lubes tested under different conditions. That table clearly shows efficiencies of 90.9 for Castrol Dry Lube, 91.1 for White Lightening, and 92.6 for Pedros at 100 watts power, 52x15, and 60 RPM. Now refer to the text in that section, they state that the efficiency measured for no lube at 100 watts, 52x15 and 60 RPM was 90.3%.

If anything I understated the differences because for simplicity I used the difference in efficiencies as the % difference in power transmission when comparing one to the other. The truer difference in percentage is arrived at by comparing the point difference between them to the base points of the least efficient. For example Pedros is 2.3 points better than no lube, which has a rating of 90.3. Therefore Pedros is 2.3/90.9, or 2.5%, more efficient than no lube and similarly 1.7/91.1, or 1.9% more efficient than Castrol Dry lube.

milmo

I can. Please see https://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-15505311.html

Note, for example, the difference in watts absorbed between the Shimano R-550 and Mavic Ksyrium Equipe, 25.9 and 30.0 respectively. This was a front wheel simulation and I understand it is generally believed that rear wheel differences are half that of front. So the total wheelset difference is 1.5 that of the 4.1 watt difference of the front only, or about 6 watts.

The test is on complete wheels so it includes spoke and hub effects.

2_i 

I swore you referred to 52x11, but indeed now it appears that you referred to 52x15. Further, indeed in the text they give 90.3% for the 52x15 at 60RPM/100W after degreasing. However, in Table 1 they give 92.3% for the same conditions without lube. (Within the measurement errors, 92.3 for no lube and 92.6 for Pedro's would have been the same.) The difference between the two no-lube measurements, 90.3 and 92.3, is much greater than 0.2% measurement error than they quote in the text. Maybe there had been some other changes in the setup that are not mentioned (chainline, different or deteriorated chain??). I think that you are, however, right in saying that this 90.3% value is more relevant as baseline, since obtained within the same stage of experimentation.

It would have been obviously better if they provided more info, providing more systematic view than this one off-the-cuff number, for deciding about the role of the lubes. Overall, Pedro's looks superior to the two other lubes and, if deciding on the basis of this one reference number, it may perform better than no lube.

dabac

The thing I like the most about the Chain-L is the bottle, which has pretty much the perfect dribble characteristics to make applying the stuff easy and relatively mess-free.
FB was easy to deal with, fast and helpful.
As a lube it certainly seems to do better than the white oil I was trying out earlier, but whether it's significantly better than the more traditional lubes I've used before I can't say.
White oil was easier on the nose and hands though.

rekmeyata

Make sure you follow their directions to the letter for best performance. Their website has questions and answers if you need more detail. I decided to use it on a couple of bikes I had put new chains on first and leave the old ones using the lube I had been using before.

Like I said earlier, so far I like the stuff, the only outstanding issue is chain wear which I won't know for a while. Even if Chain-L's chain wear is the same as the Finish Line Ceramic I'll probably switch due to the less hassle of cleaning and reapplication.

San Rensho 

All right, you convinced me. I'm switching to gear oil with my new chain to see how long it lasts. Boy that stuff stinks.

yak

Being someone who normally removes my chains to clean them, I applied Chain-L back in October on 3 mtn bikes and one road bike, using the one-drop per link method with the chain stretched out on newspaper.

I've only cleaned one of the chains since, leaving it on the bike and using a rag and a toothbrush, then reapplied a small amount of Chain-L using the brush.

All of the chains are "forget they are there" quiet.

rekmeyata

But, will gear oil attract dirt and grit like motor oil? Since I started using Chain-L on two of my chains I haven't noticed this.

HillRider

Thank you. I had to assume the wattage you reported was for the entire wheel assembly and the majority of the drag was aerodynamic. There was no way a hub alone required that much energy to turn.

newbybiker

I use "Krazy Grease" for all my lube. I have a jar for my boat trailer bearings but I use it on everything including my bike. It's a grade 2 grease so I use an old toothbrush to work it in the chain. It's water resistant so it last a long time. It's hard to find, typically at marine shops or trailer shops but I think you can buy it online.

wroomwroomoops

Very satisfied with the lube, so far!

I have to add that, since I work in a lab a lot of the time, I have some discarded 2 ml LDPE pipettes, which I use to apply the chain oil to the rollers super-sparingly. So, I used one third of the "demo" bottle to lube a singlespeed (meaning, somewhat short) chain. Even so, there was plenty of oil to wipe off, and still there is.

It has a very strange consistency. Quite viscous, and yet, it oozes around the rollers like a much ligher oil.

Bill Kapaun

To really stretch it out- (sorry FB)
I used a 1CC hypodermic I got at the drug store for $.50.
You can apply the smallest amount exactly where you want it.

I apply it to a straight section (using the quick link for a reference), go watch TV for a couple commercials worth and go back & do the next section.

I had so little excess, I didn't even bother to wipe the chain afterwards.

I thought I already had a pretty quiet chain before I used the Chain-L, but was pleasantly surprised how much quieter/smoother it seemed.
I tend to be pretty skeptical in my "advanced years", but I WILL drink THIS Kool Aid!

wroomwroomoops

How much do you use, then, for a chain?

Frugality contest!

Camilo

"Just enough". But I really don't care if I'm being frugal and have absolutely no idea how much that is or how much I use.

dddd

I've never had the stuff in front of me, so am wondering if Chain-L lube might at least be adaptable to my own chain-maint routine.

Basically, I decided long ago that I would use what I felt were long-lasting (Shimano) chains, and lube them only with various chain lubricants diluted with mineral spirits (I was being given many different lubes to use, and at the time was doing moderately high training mileage).
I developed a preference not to spend more than a minute or two applying and then wiping off the chain lube using a terry cloth shop rag, never removing the chain or doing a dedicated cleaning process beyond wiping.

So, would the Chain-L lube be suitable to this routine?

I admit that I find it hard to discern quantitative quality differences between some of the various lubes.
Some do seem somewhat cleaner than others, and some seem to last longer.
It can be hard to discern whether this is due to the quality of the formulation, or whether varying dilution effects are leaving more or less actual lube remaining on the chain (as some lubes are already diluted with solvents).

I have migrated toward using a blend of 45% mineral spirits and 55% "White Lightning Wet Ride... ...extreme conditions heavy lube".
I persist with this in part because of this blend's ability to flow readily through an aerosol applicator tube fitted to a 4oz, flat squeeze bottle, and for it's lubrication performance on both chains and on the cables of old, neglected bikes that I refurbish for students here.
With this process, I can quickly lube and clean the chain with very little wasted time, so at least my chain stays exceptionally clean, and in this state I have consistently got what I felt was excellent stretch-resistance, regardless of which lube I used.

One last question, is the Chain-L available in larger bottles?