What's the best chain cleaner & degreaser?

  • Thread starter Daniel Kelly \(AKA Jack\)
  • Start date



"SMMB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Jonesy" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de :
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Daniel Kelly \(AKA Jack\)" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > SMMB: Googling is not obligatory, but it certainly is a good way to
> > get a baseline set of data. From that data set, one could then ask
> > focused questions for clarity.
>
> I see ...
> That's to leave the available bandwidth for all the original thinkers who
> post here.

Here seems to be everywhere at the moment. I am an original thinker. Well,
maybe not now, but I was originally.

> Please pardon my silly comment.

This news group is now closed. Thank you for your attention.



Shaun aRe
 
"Steven M. Scharf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...


> Sometimes
> compressed air is helpful.

Yes, for those moments when you _rilly rilly_ need to get fine abrasive
particles into the load bearing parts of the chain.




Shaun aRe
 
"Daniel Kelly (AKA Jack)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hi,
>
> Thank you loads for your help, everyone. Incidentally, I did spend an
hour
> or so Googling before I posted my newsgroup question. But there are a lot
> of opinions out there and I wanted to see what the current status quo is.
>
> Thanks again to those who took the time to write helpful and constructive
> comments.
>
> Jack

So, who's advice did you take in the end?!?!?



Shaun aRe - Knowing minds need to enquire.
 
"Jonesy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
..
> Back to topic: I also have had poor luck with citrus-based solvents.
> They are good for degreasing clothes, or removing glue residue, but
> not for chain cleaning. I use good ol' paint thinner in a soda
> bottle. Put in the chain. Shake. Pull the chain out and wipe. Let
> dirt settle out. Pour off clear (no dirt particles) supernatant to a
> new bottle, remove dirt from old bottle. Put chain in new bottle.
> Shake. Rinse, lather, repeat until no dirt comes out of chain.

This is about the same as using a chain cleaning device, again, the key is
"rinse, lather, repeat."

> Dry thoroughly, such that NO solvent is left in the chain.

Which is why you shouldn't use water based solvents. It's very difficult to
dry it. You have water mixed with old lubricant inside the links. I guess
that a torch would accellerate the drying process. OTOH, a little petroleum
based solvent left inside is not a problem.

> Soak in
> lightweight motor oil overnight. Pull out, let drain, wipe down with
> solventy rag. Install, let sit, wipe it down again. Ride for three
> minutes until it's dirty again.

30W oil is okay (never 10Wanything), but chainsaw oil is a better choice.

> After having seen at least one experiment in r.b.t., I think the "wipe
> real good, re-oil, wipe real good again" is the best method for chain
> lubrication. Skip the cleaning, and replace the thing when it gets
> really filthy.

This works too. The problem is that it's very hard to lubricate the inside
of a chain without submersing it. What works best is, unsurprisingly, chain
lubricant, a foaming spray that is sold a motorcycle parts stores.

> I run oil in the winter, drier lube (wax-based) in the summer.

Wax is a very poor lubricant.
 
"Shaun Rimmer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Steven M. Scharf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:%[email protected]...
>
>
> > Sometimes
> > compressed air is helpful.
>
> Yes, for those moments when you _rilly rilly_ need to get fine abrasive
> particles into the load bearing parts of the chain.

He wasn't asking about the chain, he was asking about other parts of the
"chainset" which I believed to mean stuff like the freewheel, derailleur,
etc.
 
Shaun Rimmer wrote:

> So, who's advice did you take in the end?!?!?

So to speak, Gracie?

Bill "lubes, indeed" S.
 
"SMMB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Jonesy" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de :
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Daniel Kelly \(AKA Jack\)" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > SMMB: Googling is not obligatory, but it certainly is a good way to
> > get a baseline set of data. From that data set, one could then ask
> > focused questions for clarity.
>
> I see ...
> That's to leave the available bandwidth for all the original thinkers who
> post here.

Your lame attempt at wit aside...

Googling (or some other archive search) serves to EDUCATE. It
requires no additional input from any other source. And it shows that
one is willing to do a research before requesting to be spoon-fed. A
courtesy, if you will.

> Please pardon my silly comment.

It would be easy, if you had actually offered any sort of answer of
relevance to the question at hand.

Please, share some more of your wit with the world. We are in obvious
need of it. :roll eyes:
--
Jonesy
 
"Jonesy" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de :
news:[email protected]...
>
> Googling (or some other archive search) serves to EDUCATE. It
> requires no additional input from any other source. And it shows that
> one is willing to do a research before requesting to be spoon-fed. A
> courtesy, if you will.

I would have let it drop, but...

The necessary implication of your argument is that for all questions, there
are already answers, and so there is no need to ask anything, here. And I'm
not sure that opinions are "data".

You may have noticed the OP did, indeed, research before asking, even with
your favorite search engine. Sounds exceptionally prepared to me. Hope he
got a right answer. And my use has varied by the countries I have lived in
and what products are available, so I did not reply directly.

I imagine when you get together with your friends for a ride, and they ask
you how your week went, you query them why they didn't look at your blog.
Charming. Chide away - you may just be able to alienate those who just
simply want to ask a question, not reading or having read the FAQ, the
encyclopedias, the journals, et c.
--
Bonne route,

Sandy
Paris FR
 
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 21:16:16 +0200, "SMMB" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Jonesy" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de :
>> Googling (or some other archive search) serves to EDUCATE. It
>
>I would have let it drop, but...
>
>The necessary implication of your argument is that for all questions, there
>are already answers, and so there is no need to ask anything, here. And I'm
>not sure that opinions are "data".
>
>You may have noticed the OP did, indeed, research before asking, even with
>your favorite search engine. Sounds exceptionally prepared to me. Hope he
>got a right answer. And my use has varied by the countries I have lived in
>and what products are available, so I did not reply directly.

While it is courteous to search FAQs and past discussions for
answers to what are probably common questions, it's often
unoffensive to just post your question sans-research. People in
these newsfroups don't mind going out of their way to answer such
questions, mostly.

However, I believe that Jonesy hoped to avoid this specific long,
drawn-out thread that repeats itself every couple months. It's
unnecessary to go over the same arguments and opinions so often.

Further, it's obvious to me that it was a troll. If you wrote a
Trolling Howto, here's how it would go:
1. Choose a topic that historically has generated lots of
strongly-held opinions.
2. Cross-post a request for opinions on it to the following groups:
alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.marketplace,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.racing,rec.bicycles.rides,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.tech
3. Wait.

Is there any reason, other than trolling, to cross-post it? Is there
any reason, other than trolling, to post to rec.bicycles.marketplace
or rec.bicycles.soc or rec.bicycles.rides _at_all_?

Note the day on which it was posted, too.

So, why are you so offended that a troll was given the suggestion to
go and read the many thousands of messages just like the ones he
asked for?

>I imagine when you get together with your friends for a ride, and they ask
>you how your week went, you query them why they didn't look at your blog.

How my week went changes from week to week. Further, asking one
person vocally is far different from asking thousands on the
internet, when you've already got the information at your
fingertips.

>Charming. Chide away - you may just be able to alienate those who just
>simply want to ask a question, not reading or having read the FAQ, the
>encyclopedias, the journals, et c.

I wouldn't mind if people were alienated who cross-post to so many
groups to ask such loaded questions.
--
Rick Onanian
 
"Rick Onanian" <[email protected]>a écrit dans le message de :
news:[email protected]...

> Further, it's obvious to me that it was a troll

Sorry, but I took it as a simple query, and as the OP thanked those who
replied, I still do.
--
Bonne route,

Sandy
Paris FR
 
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 22:14:56 +0200, "SMMB" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Rick Onanian" <[email protected]>a écrit dans le message de :
>> Further, it's obvious to me that it was a troll
>
>Sorry, but I took it as a simple query, and as the OP thanked those who
>replied, I still do.

If it wasn't a troll, how do you explain the cross-post list that
covers nearly every bicycling newsfroup on the internet?
--
Rick Onanian
 
"Daniel Kelly \(AKA Jack\)" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Hi,
>
> Thank you loads for your help, everyone. Incidentally, I did spend an hour
> or so Googling before I posted my newsgroup question. But there are a lot
> of opinions out there and I wanted to see what the current status quo is.
>
> Thanks again to those who took the time to write helpful and constructive
> comments.

Jack - my apologies for my incomplete advice. I didn't see your "on
the bike" pre-requisite.

I will now promptly ignore it again!

Sachs/SRAM chains with a powerlink are easy to put on and take off
(for most folks - some people do have some trouble.) I take mine off
every year and give it a very thorough cleaning. Outside of that, I
wipe/oil/wipe.

If you are going to get the most life out of your chain, wipe/oil/wipe
and forget about the cleaning gizmos.
--
Jonesy
 
"Daniel Kelly \(AKA Jack\)" <[email protected]> wrote:

> And does anyone have any cunning trade secrets they'd like to give away
> regarding cleaning the rest of the chainset? Or does everyone just use
> de-greaser and a tooth brush?


3 cups-o-expresso, wait fifteen minutes and pee on the chain.
 
who? Jones writes:

> I will now promptly ignore it again!

> Sachs/SRAM chains with a PowerLink are easy to put on and take off
> (for most folks - some people do have some trouble.) I take mine
> off every year and give it a very thorough cleaning. Outside of
> that, I wipe/oil/wipe.

> If you are going to get the most life out of your chain,
> wipe/oil/wipe and forget about the cleaning gizmos.

I recommend against that method for the reasons explained in:

http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/8d.2.html

Jobst Brandt
[email protected]
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "Shaun Rimmer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Steven M. Scharf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:%[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > > Sometimes
> > > compressed air is helpful.
> >
> > Yes, for those moments when you _rilly rilly_ need to get fine abrasive
> > particles into the load bearing parts of the chain.
>
> He wasn't asking about the chain, he was asking about other parts of the
> "chainset" which I believed to mean stuff like the freewheel, derailleur,
> etc.
>
>
>
I plead guilty to using compressed air.. What is the problem if you have
washed the thing with clean solvent and want to dry it off in a hurry?
(Yeah. I know not to spin a bearing with air)
 
Shaun Rimmer wrote:

>>We are no longer allowed to Google for previous threads over here in
>>rec.bicycles.racing.
>
>
> Why?

I can't say. I suggest you Google for "h squared", "PedalChick"
"Sierraman" and "stalker". 'Nuff said.
 
"Steven M. Scharf" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Jonesy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> .
> > Back to topic: I also have had poor luck with citrus-based solvents.
> > They are good for degreasing clothes, or removing glue residue, but
> > not for chain cleaning. I use good ol' paint thinner in a soda
> > bottle. Put in the chain. Shake. Pull the chain out and wipe. Let
> > dirt settle out. Pour off clear (no dirt particles) supernatant to a
> > new bottle, remove dirt from old bottle. Put chain in new bottle.
> > Shake. Rinse, lather, repeat until no dirt comes out of chain.
>
> This is about the same as using a chain cleaning device, again, the key is
> "rinse, lather, repeat."

Less expense, and less fiddling with the bike as a whole.

> > Dry thoroughly, such that NO solvent is left in the chain.
>
> Which is why you shouldn't use water based solvents. It's very difficult to
> dry it. You have water mixed with old lubricant inside the links. I guess
> that a torch would accellerate the drying process. OTOH, a little petroleum
> based solvent left inside is not a problem.

My drying times are usually on the order of days to a week - I have
more than one chain. :)

Or I use a particularly volatile solvent as the "final rinse." I have
access to almost any solvent I desire. The one I use most often is
n-pentane.

> > Soak in
> > lightweight motor oil overnight. Pull out, let drain, wipe down with
> > solventy rag. Install, let sit, wipe it down again. Ride for three
> > minutes until it's dirty again.
>
> 30W oil is okay (never 10Wanything), but chainsaw oil is a better choice.

0W20. Or some sort of boutique bicycle chain oil - I have several
bottles lying around. Motorcycle chain oil works OK as well.

> > After having seen at least one experiment in r.b.t., I think the "wipe
> > real good, re-oil, wipe real good again" is the best method for chain
> > lubrication. Skip the cleaning, and replace the thing when it gets
> > really filthy.
>
> This works too. The problem is that it's very hard to lubricate the inside
> of a chain without submersing it. What works best is, unsurprisingly, chain
> lubricant, a foaming spray that is sold a motorcycle parts stores.

Yeah. Jobst's opinion on lubrication without thorough cleaning is
interesting, but I don't normally run my chains for years on end.
Every couple of years, I just buy a new chain. Heck, even the old
ones I have lying around still don't have measurable elongation.

> > I run oil in the winter, drier lube (wax-based) in the summer.
>
> Wax is a very poor lubricant.

Depends on its melting point. Paraffin wax (the kind one might use
for making candles) is not very good. Even when mixed with a light
lube to lower its melting point. I use a teflon-based wax with a low
melting temp. Works pretty well, and even keeps going when it gets
wet. Doesn't work very well when the temps dip below 50 degrees F.
--
Jonesy
 
"Daniel Kelly \(AKA Jack\)" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Hi,
>
> Please may I ask your advice? What's the best device for cleaning mountain
> bike chains? I'd like it to be cheap and to work without me having to take
> the chain off.
>
> Is the Finish Line Chain Cleaning Kit the best? And how about the
> degreaser? Is it worth spending money on an expensive de-greaser or will
> white spirit / washing-up liquid to the job?
>
> And does anyone have any cunning trade secrets they'd like to give away
> regarding cleaning the rest of the chainset? Or does everyone just use
> de-greaser and a tooth brush?
>
> Many thanks,
> Jack
> I use a 'carwash' type chain cleaner filled with 'Purple Power',
a product available at department stores and auto parts stores.
It is about 5 dollars for a gallon jug. Works great on whitewall
tires also; much cheaper and just as effective as other products.

m
 
Daniel Kelly (AKA Jack) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please may I ask your advice? What's the best device for cleaning
> mountain bike chains? I'd like it to be cheap and to work without me
> having to take the chain off.

So where do you ride?
Riding around the park or the city car parks gets a lot less **** on the
chain than riding on a volcanic sandy beach or a moorland track with
black peaty boggy stretches full of granite particles.

People who ride on the latter tend to alternate two chains every couple of
months, one which is cleaned on the bike after every ride and a second
which gets the full monty of degreasing and relubing off bike ready for the
next changeover.
Removing chains these days is so simple with the removable links.
TW
 
"SMMB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Jonesy" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de :
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Googling (or some other archive search) serves to EDUCATE. It
> > requires no additional input from any other source. And it shows that
> > one is willing to do a research before requesting to be spoon-fed. A
> > courtesy, if you will.
>
> I would have let it drop, but...

....there was less to say about chain cleaning, and more to whine about
responses that don't meet your politeness criteria?

> The necessary implication of your argument is that for all questions, there
> are already answers, and so there is no need to ask anything, here.

Wrong. The logical fallacy of a false dichotomy. Discussion does
imply discussion, after all! But some questions have been thoroughly
covered. Both in USENET, and in particular group FAQs. Why on earth
should there even be such a thing as a FAQ, if the Qs were not FA?

In other words, the implication is not at all necessary.

> And I'm
> not sure that opinions are "data".

The set of them are the data that is going to be available. Being
pedantic does not improve your positiion.

> You may have noticed the OP did, indeed, research before asking, even with
> your favorite search engine. Sounds exceptionally prepared to me.

Your lame attempt at condescension aside, the OP did not indicate
originally, even by implication, that he had done anything other than
rush to USENET. Regardless, I don't take issue with that as much as
with your idea that folks should be spoon-fed any info they desire,
especially on subjects that come up over, and over, and over, and
over, and over...

> Hope he
> got a right answer.

How could he possibly? After all, there are only "opinions" here,
right?

> And my use has varied by the countries I have lived in
> and what products are available, so I did not reply directly.

What, chemistry is different in other countries? Mineral spirits are
mineral spirits EVERYWHERE, even in France. Medium petroleum
distillate, kerosene, paint thinner, Stoddard Solvent, etc, etc.

Even as such, you STILL have not provided anything other than
complaining. Do you have anything of value to offer, or are you just
polishing your King Whiner badge?

> I imagine when you get together with your friends for a ride, and they ask
> you how your week went, you query them why they didn't look at your blog.

I don't have a blog, and the situations are not analogous.

> Chide away - you may just be able to alienate those who just
> simply want to ask a question, not reading or having read the FAQ, the
> encyclopedias, the journals, et c.

Or I could alienate the likes of you - officious jerks who have no
courtesy outside of "what can you do for me?" That'd be fine by me.
--
Jonesy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back