Chain waxing + graphite question

Quoted message said:

Steven Scharf said:

Quoted message said:

> It really isn't that big of a deal if one gets it down to a
> ritual: Remove chain from bike and drop in cleaner (Simple Green.)
> Remove from cleaner, rinse in hot water and put into deep fryer.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Be careful using simple green to clean your chain...

http://www.velonews.com/tech/report/articles/9216.0.html

Quoted message said:

Good article. As one of the writers wrote, "Since the main
ingredient is water, I would not recommend soaking a chain in it."
Frankly I am amazed that people would actually use water to clean a
chain, it's a very bad idea. You can dry the outside, but water
remains inside, in the worst possible area. You want to use a
non-water based solvent such as kerosene.

I suppose in that vein, you never ride when roads are wet. Chains run
well in water, the only problem is that when the road dries, so does
the chain and then it squeaks for lack of a lubricant. There are many
ways of drying a chain and the rusting rate is slow enough that it is
immaterial to its well being. Your admonition falls close to the
questions on how to keep chains from rusting on the bicycle, a non
problem for people who ride rather than park the bicycle outdoors.

Well I walk when it rains too, but I don't intentionally submerge my
shoes into a bucket of water.

I really agree with what Jobst Brandt wrote, advising to clean the chain
in kerosene or a commercial solvent, to use a motorcycle chain lube for
lubrication, and to avoid wax. Not sure what he meant by "commercial
solvent" but I assume it's a non-water based solvent.

I find cleaning the chain on the bike is more effective, though it takes
several solvent changes before the solvent runs clean (though the same
is the case with soaking and agitating it). Having the links and pins in
motion through the solvent helps to get the internal dirt out.

Quoted message said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Quoted message said:

>> This is an old method here on wreck.bike, the extreme case being
>> one where at the end of an instructional essay, the writer adds,
>> "that's right isn't it?" when in fact the whole posting was a
>> question in disguise.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Of course we also frequently get the situation where someone asks a
> question directly and you denounce them for making a statement and
> pretending it's a question....

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Maybe you can dig one of these up and show how that was.

Quoted message said:

You did it to me. I asked about something that was probably not
true but was genuinely curious if maybe it was true, and you came
back with comments about how it was obviously untrue, and that I was
spreading myth, etc. And I think there was some random dig at some
other type of person, like the little addition you made about guys
in November or whatever.

Quoted message said:

I can't readily find that example, but below is another one

I think you are confusing rude four letter words and insinuations of
dementia with the terse responses I often give to postings that are
like the frozen water bottle types, obvious fabrications.

Quoted message said:

In <[email hidden]> [email hidden] (Jobst Brandt)
writes:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Travis Thom writes:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I used to work with someone who used linseed oil as a spoke prep.
> when wheelbuilding.  After eight years, the wheels he built for me
> are still serviceable and the spokes stay put.  I want to build
> some wheels, and would like to try the oil.  Does anyone know if I
> should use raw or boiled linseed oil?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That depends on whether under a full or new moon.  What exactly did
he tell you that this 'tossing of salt over the left shoulder' did
for the wheel and how did it do this?

Well? Linseed oil is just so much salt over the shoulder.

No, it's not. It doesn't work but reasonable people *know* salt over
the shoulder is superstition. Reasonable but ignorant people (I was
in this category) who don't understand how wheels work can think that
linseed oil works. We (mistakenly) believe it has practical value.

So when we ask it is works, or even say that it works, the appropriate
response is to simply tell them it doesn't work, not to mock us by
equating a flawed understanding with superstition.

Your occasional posts where you simply post a link to your responses
to FAQs at Sheldon Browns site are terse. But sometimes you go out
of your way to make fun of people for acting a question.

[details on why spoke prep and linseed oil are not needed snipped]

You really don't understand what I'm talking about, so I'll try to
explain it again. I'm not commenting at all on the use of linseed oil
or spoke prep. I'm commenting on that fact that because someone else
doesn't understand something as well as you, you often feel the need
to claim they have some desire for superstition, rather than simply
being ignorant. Those two thigns are not the same. Step back for a
minute and think about it.

Quoted message said:

I'm still looking for my denunciation of someone for asking a
reasonable question. You may be less sensitive to trolls than I am.

You're mistaken if you think these people are all trolls. And if you
truly think they are trolls, just don't answer.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Mike DeMicco said:

Doesn't wax dissolve in alcohol?

Parrafin doesn't dissolve well in ethanonl.

bill said:

I have broken too many chains to count, on a standard racing bike. It
is annoying. It all started when Sedisport was retired and I started
buying "Sachs" chains. So I started replacing every 5,000 miles,
whether "worn" or not. Now I ride Dura-Ace or Crampygoslow Chorus as
appropriate. Frankly I couldn't care less about the chain stretch. If
it works, it works. Just as long as it isn't breaking. And the stretch
doesn't tell you anything about fatigue life and so why bother
measuring it?

That's odd. I have broken a chain only once in years of cycling
(probably where I joined it badly). I weigh 230 and use the most
inexpensive chains I can find (Sachs/SRAM PC-48 usually). I use the same
chains on road & MTB, chain loads are much greater with small chainrings
(22T on MTB). Chains wear and change pitch predictably. I don't see
fatigue as an issue.

HarryB said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>I think I grasp somewhat the reasoning behind measuring the
>>distance between pins rather than between rollers. But, Lennard
>>Zinn in the latest version of his book "Zinn & The Art of Road
>>Bike Maintenance" writes: "The most reliable way to see whether
>>the chain is worn out is to employ a chain-elongation gauge, such
>>as the model make by Rohloff."

Quoted message said:

I don't recall reading that Zinn passes along myths and that I
should be on the lookout for "axiomatic proclamations" which would get
me into trouble if I followed them.

Zinn is wrong, a Rohloff tool is *not* the "most reliable" way to check
chains. That is an example of one of his "axiomatic proclamations".

I use a 12" steel ruler and measure from the front edge of a pin to the
front edge of a pin 12" away. A new chain should line up perfectly on
the ruler. By the time a chain has worn enough that the ruler lines up
on the rear edge of a pin, the chain is worn out, the diameter of a pin
being approximately the allowable elongation over 12" (if you want to be
conservative you could change a bit earlier).

As for cleaning, a poster on this NG did an experiment a while back
where he cleaned half the chain an left the other half only wiped. He
didn't find any difference in wear. Despite all the claims about various
rituals, no one has taken the time to repeat the experiment. I don't
bother cleaning chains any more, myself.

As for the "dirty chain" problem, there are many solutions (for those
who are bothered) including off-the-shelf wax-based lubes like White
Lightning, which pretty much solve the cosmetic problem. If you want to
"shake & bake" or "dip & fry" chains, be my guest, but I think these
rituals are just that.

As for your tandem timing chain wearing out prematurely, I'd hesitate
before accusing the seller of stiffing you with a pre-worn chain, it may
be that the timing chain was badly adjusted (or the rings eccentrically
mounted, etc.).

If the Park tool works better for you with your eyesight problems, then
it's a worthwhile tool, but for most of us it's not a good choice since
it's $30 and not guaranteed to be more accurate (or quicker) than a
ruler -- IOW, a solution looking for a problem.

Steven Scharf said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> It really isn't that big of a deal if one gets it down to a
>> ritual: Remove chain from bike and drop in cleaner (Simple
>> Green.) Remove from cleaner, rinse in hot water and put into
>> deep fryer.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Be careful using simple green to clean your chain...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.velonews.com/tech/report/articles/9216.0.html

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Good article. As one of the writers wrote, "Since the main
ingredient is water, I would not recommend soaking a chain in it."
Frankly I am amazed that people would actually use water to clean
a chain, it's a very bad idea. You can dry the outside, but water
remains inside, in the worst possible area. You want to use a
non-water based solvent such as kerosene.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I suppose in that vein, you never ride when roads are wet. Chains
run well in water, the only problem is that when the road dries, so
does the chain and then it squeaks for lack of a lubricant. There
are many ways of drying a chain and the rusting rate is slow enough
that it is immaterial to its well being. Your admonition falls
close to the questions on how to keep chains from rusting on the
bicycle, a non problem for people who ride rather than park the
bicycle outdoors.

Quoted message said:

Well I walk when it rains too, but I don't intentionally submerge my
shoes into a bucket of water.

That may be, but the bicycle chain does not have that option. It eats
road water at a great rate as water from the front wheel strikes the
BB and splashes to the side in a steady spray. Just look at the
downtube after a ride on a wet road and note the accumulation of sand.
That isn't what the chain waxer and toothbrush cleaner visualizes.

Quoted message said:

I really agree with what Jobst Brandt wrote, advising to clean the
chain in kerosene or a commercial solvent, to use a motorcycle chain
lube for lubrication, and to avoid wax. Not sure what he meant by
"commercial solvent" but I assume it's a non-water based solvent.

Commercial solvents used in automotive parts cleaning are petroleum
based.

Quoted message said:

I find cleaning the chain on the bike is more effective, though it
takes several solvent changes before the solvent runs clean (though
the same is the case with soaking and agitating it).

This also washes the derailleur idler wheels of any lubricant in their
bearings.

Quoted message said:

Having the links and pins in motion through the solvent helps to get
the internal dirt out.

I think you have the wrong picture in mind. The dirt inside the chain
is fine granite dust and metal powder that is not caked in place. If
you disassemble a dirty chain I think you'll see that it contains a
fine grey/black residue that is easily washed away by immersion and
sloshing the chain around in the wash tank. Caked on external dirt is
the part that is hard to dislodge and that is best done by a stiff
parts cleaning brush in a wash tank having a perforated false bottom.

Jobst Brandt

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Quoted message said:

Well? Linseed oil is just so much salt over the shoulder.

Quoted message said:

No, it's not. It doesn't work but reasonable people *know* salt
over the shoulder is superstition. Reasonable but ignorant people
(I was in this category) who don't understand how wheels work can
think that linseed oil works. We (mistakenly) believe it has
practical value.

Quoted message said:

So when we ask it is works, or even say that it works, the
appropriate response is to simply tell them it doesn't work, not to
mock us by equating a flawed understanding with superstition.

Quoted message said:

Your occasional posts where you simply post a link to your responses
to FAQs at Sheldon Browns site are terse. But sometimes you go out
of your way to make fun of people for acting a question.

I think you don't understand. As I said these posts are trolls that
have all the earmarks of telling us something the writer doesn't
understand and done in a smug manner. My response takes that issue to
task. If you look at what the person wrote, like the one about how
linseed oil made his wheels last a long time, there is a message there
that doesn't merit passing on as fact and the writer knows it.

Quoted message said:

[details on why spoke prep and linseed oil are not needed snipped]

Quoted message said:

You really don't understand what I'm talking about, so I'll try to
explain it again. I'm not commenting at all on the use of linseed oil
or spoke prep. I'm commenting on that fact that because someone else
doesn't understand something as well as you, you often feel the need
to claim they have some desire for superstition, rather than simply
being ignorant. Those two things are not the same. Step back for a
minute and think about it.

I think you don't see beyond the linseed oil. The tone of that post,
as others, is that this is the solution to some specific problem when
in fact the person writing has no evidence that it is so. Passing on
naivete as fact is bluster at best. If you like that, it's your
choice.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm still looking for my denunciation of someone for asking a
reasonable question. You may be less sensitive to trolls than I am.

Quoted message said:

You're mistaken if you think these people are all trolls. And if you
truly think they are trolls, just don't answer.

Ah yes, but the misinformation that rest of the newsgroup gets is
worth a response. That you don't see the damage these intentional and
unintentional trolls cause, is what keeps the level of BS in bicycling
high. Re-read the linseed oil item and consider what message it gave.

Jobst Brandt

Peter Cole said:

HarryB said:

Quoted message said:

>>>I think I grasp somewhat the reasoning behind measuring the
>>>distance between pins rather than between rollers. But, Lennard
>>>Zinn in the latest version of his book "Zinn & The Art of Road
>>>Bike Maintenance" writes: "The most reliable way to see whether
>>>the chain is worn out is to employ a chain-elongation gauge, such
>>>as the model make by Rohloff."

Quoted message said:

I don't recall reading that Zinn passes along myths and that I
should be on the lookout for "axiomatic proclamations" which would get
me into trouble if I followed them.

Zinn is wrong, a Rohloff tool is *not* the "most reliable" way to check
chains. That is an example of one of his "axiomatic proclamations".

Didn't *you* just make an "axiomatic proclamation"? You offered no
proof that he is wrong. As a newbie to many of these discussions I'm
confused about this "axiomatic proclamation" business. One can hardly
expect an author to justify each and every statement he makes.

In reference to Zinn's book, Jobst Brandt wrote, "If you read the tone
of such a book and find axiomatic proclamations
with no reasoning for the claims, you should be wary of its claims. I
prefer seeing stated what the method is, why it should be used and a
test by which you can prove it to yourself."

Well, how about this example: Zinn also writes, without any proof,
"The distance between these rivets should be 12 inches exactly. If it
is 12 1/8 inches or greater, replace the chain..." Isn't that also an
"axiomatic proclamation"? He doesn't offer any proof for this
statement. He does explain the effects of excessive wear on the
chainrings and cogs, but doesn't explain why 12 1/8" and not, let's
say 12 1/2", is the replacement point. Has Zinn also been taken to
task for this "axiomatic proclamation", or is it that since most
people seem to agree with that statement they don't apply the same
standard as when they disagree? IOW, the "axiomatic proclamation" test
is not applied uniformly?

Quoted message said:

I use a 12" steel ruler and measure from the front edge of a pin to the
front edge of a pin 12" away. A new chain should line up perfectly on
the ruler. By the time a chain has worn enough that the ruler lines up
on the rear edge of a pin, the chain is worn out, the diameter of a pin
being approximately the allowable elongation over 12" (if you want to be
conservative you could change a bit earlier).

As for cleaning, a poster on this NG did an experiment a while back
where he cleaned half the chain an left the other half only wiped. He
didn't find any difference in wear. Despite all the claims about various
rituals, no one has taken the time to repeat the experiment. I don't
bother cleaning chains any more, myself.

As for the "dirty chain" problem, there are many solutions (for those
who are bothered) including off-the-shelf wax-based lubes like White
Lightning, which pretty much solve the cosmetic problem. If you want to
"shake & bake" or "dip & fry" chains, be my guest, but I think these
rituals are just that.

I have tried other methods of lubricating and found that overall they
are more work than the hot wax method I use to accomplish my goals.

Quoted message said:

As for your tandem timing chain wearing out prematurely, I'd hesitate
before accusing the seller of stiffing you with a pre-worn chain, it may
be that the timing chain was badly adjusted (or the rings eccentrically
mounted, etc.).

In retrospect there are other factors which lead me to this
unfortunate conclusion. I won't mention them here because they are
irrelevant to this discussion but I doubt I will ever purchase another
bike from this dealer. That will be a hardship for me since tandem
dealers are few and far between and we will have to drive hundreds of
miles to the next nearest dealer.

Quoted message said:

If the Park tool works better for you with your eyesight problems, then
it's a worthwhile tool, but for most of us it's not a good choice since
it's $30 and not guaranteed to be more accurate (or quicker) than a
ruler -- IOW, a solution looking for a problem.

I paid a lot less than that, but the price of this tool is irrelevant
- the question is about it's accuracy. As I have already indicated in
a couple of other posts, I have found that when I checked the CC-2's
readings against a ruler's, the results have been comparable. No one
has yet shown me any data which meets the "axiomatic proclamation"
standard as articulated by Jobst Brandt. IOW, I have read a bunch of
theory, but I have not read of anyone who has actually checked the
accuracy of the CC-2 against a ruler. I would welcome reviewing such a
test. Until I have seen such a test, I must draw the conclusion that
the allegation that Park Tool's CC-2 is inaccurate is an axiomatic
proclamation.

Harry

bill said:

HarryB said:

Mike DeMicco said:

HarryB <[email hidden]> wrote in news:s99uu114jtobbgfismqv2mbl60irmhagc0@
4ax.com:

> I'm going to spend some time researching this because I run expensive
> chains on our tandem and don't want to waste money by replacing them
> more or less often than necessary.

The LBS measured my chain with the Rohloff gage and told me that the
chain and cassette were worn out. The 10 speed Shimano chain had only a
few thousand miles on it, and I am careful to keep it clean and lubed. Of
course I did not believe it and measured it with a ruler when I got home.
It was hardly worn at all; well short of the commonly accepted 12-1/16"
measurement that determines a worn out chain. Anyone using the Rohloff
gage is going to be wasting a lot of money on buying new chains, IMO.

If you do a search on Google groups you will find this topic has been
discussed at length in the past.

I was caught by surprise to discover that there is controversy about
how to determine chain wear. It's just not something that I as a
newbie expected. Once again I'm learning something new. That is part
of what makes life so interesting.

Harry

Chains wear out. cogs wear out. Non-lubed chains wear out faster. Wax
is not a lube, it is a surface protectant. When your chain starts
skipping, relace the chain and the freewheel cogset at the same time.

I don't know if wax is a lubricant or a protectant, nor do I much care
about the details. What I do know is that in my limited experience, my
waxed chains last longer between waxings than other methods of
lubricating I have used. Additionally, I am getting excellent mileage
from my waxed chains. I plan on replacing my chains when they wear to
the point which is recommended to protect the cogs and chainwheels as
much as possible and don't see any need to replace the cogs and
chainwheels until they are worn.

Quoted message said:

Tandems overload normal bicycle chains. Too much load. That is why
they break. Two people pulling on one chain.

Can't agree. Good quality tandems are engineered to deal with the
additional load. Good quality chains apparently are perfectly capable
of handling the load of two riders, even two strong riders (which we
are not.) And AFAIK, even people who ride triples and quads use
normal drive chains.

Quoted message said:

After a while, you will
notice that bicycles are not rationally engineered. They are cobbled
together, and that "standards" are merely defaults, not well thought
out.

I have broken too many chains to count, on a standard racing bike. It
is annoying. It all started when Sedisport was retired and I started
buying "Sachs" chains. So I started replacing every 5,000 miles,
whether "worn" or not. Now I ride Dura-Ace or Crampygoslow Chorus as
appropriate. Frankly I couldn't care less about the chain stretch. If
it works, it works. Just as long as it isn't breaking. And the stretch
doesn't tell you anything about fatigue life and so why bother
measuring it?

I don't accept the idea that when a good quality chain breaks under
"normal" riding conditions that it is the fault of the rider(s). When
we recently broke our drive chain on a rather steep (for us) hill, I
could not get our LBS to replace it under warranty. However, dealing
directly with the importer I have gotten them to agree to replace the
chain. They of course didn't admit that the chain was defective, but
all I asked is that they replace what I allege to be a defective chain
and they agreed to do so.

Harry

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Harry None None writes:

... What
does B stand for by the way, or is that embarrassing? We know that
jim beam is a whiskey rather than a human, although the alias is used
by a participant in this forum.

Jobst Brandt

Jobst, calm down. Harry's new here, and he hasn't encountered your -
um, ascerbic style before, nor your dislike of anonymous posters.

Harry, welcome. Jobst is a very smart guy, but you have to get used to
his inimitable style.

- Frank Krygowski

Thanks for the welcome, Frank.

Yes, I know Jobst is a smart guy and I have had a great deal of
respect for him in the past. That has all changed based on the little
exchange I have just had with him. I no longer have much respect for
him as a person, although I will continue to have much respect for his
expertise and opinions.

He reminds me of a number of very smart and gifted people I have known
over the years. A couple of them had the ability to remember that most
of what they know is based on the work of others who preceded them.
Consequently they could be sympathetic to the plight of someone who
was new to their particular field of expertise. The others had a
"smarter than thou, and how dare you doubt me?" attitude. I learned
more from the former than the latter.

As far as being an anonymous poster, that is simply a carry over from
the older days of the usenet when many of us would provide fake email
addresses in order to avoid getting spammed as a result of data
harvesters.

Harry

aka Jobst Brandt said:

...
I think you have the wrong picture in mind. The dirt inside the chain
is fine granite dust and metal powder that is not caked in place....

The feldspar portion of granite usually weathers to clay minerals,
while the quartz and mica portions exhibits much less change from
chemical weathering, typically producing quartz and mica particles that
range from "sand" sized to "clay" sized [1]. Therefore, unless one is
referring to a process when abrasive or crushing mechanical processes
are forming "rock flour" from granite, the use of the term "granite
dust" is misleading.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain_size>.

--
Tom Sherman

In article <[email hidden]>,

HarryB said:

Well, how about this example: Zinn also writes, without any proof,
"The distance between these rivets should be 12 inches exactly. If it
is 12 1/8 inches or greater, replace the chain..." Isn't that also an
"axiomatic proclamation"? He doesn't offer any proof for this
statement. He does explain the effects of excessive wear on the
chainrings and cogs, but doesn't explain why 12 1/8" and not, let's
say 12 1/2", is the replacement point. Has Zinn also been taken to
task for this "axiomatic proclamation", or is it that since most
people seem to agree with that statement they don't apply the same
standard as when they disagree? IOW, the "axiomatic proclamation" test
is not applied uniformly?

At 12" 1/8 the cogs on the cogwheels of the rear wheel are
already badly worn. Replace your chain whenever it reaches
12' 1/16. Many people will tell you that they have
prematurely worn out cogwheels by running out of
specification chains. You should do the experiment
yourself. The essence of the scientific method is
reproducibility of reported results.

My local bicycle shop (35+ years in the business) uses a
simple rule of thumb. Put on a new chain, add lubricant
when it complains, throw it away after 1000 miles.

--
Michael Press

Michael Press aka Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

HarryB said:

Well, how about this example: Zinn also writes, without any proof,
"The distance between these rivets should be 12 inches exactly. If it
is 12 1/8 inches or greater, replace the chain..." Isn't that also an
"axiomatic proclamation"? He doesn't offer any proof for this
statement. He does explain the effects of excessive wear on the
chainrings and cogs, but doesn't explain why 12 1/8" and not, let's
say 12 1/2", is the replacement point. Has Zinn also been taken to
task for this "axiomatic proclamation", or is it that since most
people seem to agree with that statement they don't apply the same
standard as when they disagree? IOW, the "axiomatic proclamation" test
is not applied uniformly?

At 12" 1/8 the cogs on the cogwheels of the rear wheel are
already badly worn. Replace your chain whenever it reaches
12' 1/16. Many people will tell you that they have
prematurely worn out cogwheels by running out of
specification chains. You should do the experiment
yourself. The essence of the scientific method is
reproducibility of reported results.

My local bicycle shop (35+ years in the business) uses a
simple rule of thumb. Put on a new chain, add lubricant
when it complains, throw it away after 1000 miles.

So your LBS have been throwing out perfectly good chains for 35 years?
We are NOT talking about an item such as helicopter rotor blades here
where failure will probably lead to the death of the occupants.

At $30-50 per replacement chain, I will certainly not be throwing them
out at 1,000 miles when they last much longer.

--
Tom Sherman

Quoted message said:

I think you don't understand. As I said these posts are trolls that
have all the earmarks of telling us something the writer doesn't
understand and done in a smug manner.

Some may be trolls. No way all are trolls -- some are just questions.
You assume since you've answered the question a zillion times that
everyone must know the answer, but a lot of people are ignorant and
lazy and have no ill will -- they're just asking a questions.

Quoted message said:

My response takes that issue to
task. If you look at what the person wrote, like the one about how
linseed oil made his wheels last a long time, there is a message there
that doesn't merit passing on as fact and the writer knows it.

Quoted message said:

[details on why spoke prep and linseed oil are not needed snipped]

Quoted message said:

You really don't understand what I'm talking about, so I'll try to
explain it again. I'm not commenting at all on the use of linseed oil
or spoke prep. I'm commenting on that fact that because someone else
doesn't understand something as well as you, you often feel the need
to claim they have some desire for superstition, rather than simply
being ignorant. Those two things are not the same. Step back for a
minute and think about it.

I think you don't see beyond the linseed oil. The tone of that post,
as others, is that this is the solution to some specific problem when
in fact the person writing has no evidence that it is so.

So you're saying that because someone has no evidence they're
trolling? That's quite a leap. Probably most are simply ignorant. I
know I believed in the linseed oil thing because I simply didn't know
better.

Quoted message said:

Passing on
naivete as fact is bluster at best. If you like that, it's your
choice.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm still looking for my denunciation of someone for asking a
reasonable question. You may be less sensitive to trolls than I am.

Quoted message said:

You're mistaken if you think these people are all trolls. And if you
truly think they are trolls, just don't answer.

Ah yes, but the misinformation that rest of the newsgroup gets is
worth a response.

The response is saying they're wrong and/or demonstrating it. Or
saying nothing if it tires you too much.

Quoted message said:

That you don't see the damage these intentional and
unintentional trolls cause,

Ahhhh, here we get to the meat of the issue. You think that someone
can be trolling unintentionally. The whole nature of trolling is
trying to stir up trouble. By it's very nature people can't troll
unintentionally.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

HarryB said:

Well, how about this example: Zinn also writes, without any proof,
"The distance between these rivets should be 12 inches exactly. If it
is 12 1/8 inches or greater, replace the chain..." Isn't that also an
"axiomatic proclamation"? He doesn't offer any proof for this
statement. He does explain the effects of excessive wear on the
chainrings and cogs, but doesn't explain why 12 1/8" and not, let's
say 12 1/2", is the replacement point. Has Zinn also been taken to
task for this "axiomatic proclamation", or is it that since most
people seem to agree with that statement they don't apply the same
standard as when they disagree? IOW, the "axiomatic proclamation" test
is not applied uniformly?

At 12" 1/8 the cogs on the cogwheels of the rear wheel are
already badly worn. Replace your chain whenever it reaches
12' 1/16. Many people will tell you that they have
prematurely worn out cogwheels by running out of
specification chains. You should do the experiment
yourself. The essence of the scientific method is
reproducibility of reported results.

My local bicycle shop (35+ years in the business) uses a
simple rule of thumb. Put on a new chain, add lubricant
when it complains, throw it away after 1000 miles.

You (approvingly) cite your LBS's very unscientific method of
replacing chains after 1,000 miles of use. How do they know when a
chain has reached the 1,000 mile mark? Do they check the odometer of
each bike? And what evidence do they have that each and every chain is
worn out at the 1,000 mile point? That would become a very expensive
proposition for some riders. Even from this newbie's perspective I can
conclude quite quickly that your LBS doesn't have their customer's
best interest at heart if what you report is true. BTW, you aren't a
part owner of this LBS, are you?

What is the name of this LBS, so that others may be aware of this
practice?

Harry

Quoted message said:

I think you have the wrong picture in mind. The dirt inside the chain
is fine granite dust and metal powder that is not caked in place. If
you disassemble a dirty chain I think you'll see that it contains a
fine grey/black residue that is easily washed away by immersion and
sloshing the chain around in the wash tank. Caked on external dirt is
the part that is hard to dislodge and that is best done by a stiff
parts cleaning brush in a wash tank having a perforated false bottom.

Jobst Brandt

I've thought that a great amount of black stuff that appears on
chains is the rubber powder from the wearing of car tires. I think
that rubber dust is also a part of what coats the rims on a wet ride.
Oil on the bike seems to get dirty quicker around town in Los Angeles
than on roads less traveled. I did a tour in Southern Utah last fall
and got rained on. The equipment was a lot cleaner than it would have
been had I gotten wet in LosA.

HarryB said:

Peter Cole said:

HarryB said:

>>>>I think I grasp somewhat the reasoning behind measuring the
>>>>distance between pins rather than between rollers. But, Lennard
>>>>Zinn in the latest version of his book "Zinn & The Art of Road
>>>>Bike Maintenance" writes: "The most reliable way to see whether
>>>>the chain is worn out is to employ a chain-elongation gauge, such
>>>>as the model make by Rohloff."

Quoted message said:

I don't recall reading that Zinn passes along myths and that I
should be on the lookout for "axiomatic proclamations" which would get
me into trouble if I followed them.

Zinn is wrong, a Rohloff tool is *not* the "most reliable" way to check
chains. That is an example of one of his "axiomatic proclamations".

Didn't *you* just make an "axiomatic proclamation"? You offered no
proof that he is wrong.

I didn't (offer proof), because it seemed you had already "grasped" that
from your original statement.

The reason it's not the "most reliable" is that it doesn't measure pitch
directly -- or at least not as directly as a ruler does.

Quoted message said:

As a newbie to many of these discussions I'm
confused about this "axiomatic proclamation" business. One can hardly
expect an author to justify each and every statement he makes.

Well, that depends on how much you trust the author and/or how curious
you are. If you're interested enough in chain lubrication to brew your
own lube, I would think you'd be interested in the mechanisms of chain wear.

Quoted message said:

In reference to Zinn's book, Jobst Brandt wrote, "If you read the tone
of such a book and find axiomatic proclamations
with no reasoning for the claims, you should be wary of its claims. I
prefer seeing stated what the method is, why it should be used and a
test by which you can prove it to yourself."

Well, how about this example: Zinn also writes, without any proof,
"The distance between these rivets should be 12 inches exactly. If it
is 12 1/8 inches or greater, replace the chain..." Isn't that also an
"axiomatic proclamation"?

Yes.

Quoted message said:

He doesn't offer any proof for this
statement. He does explain the effects of excessive wear on the
chainrings and cogs, but doesn't explain why 12 1/8" and not, let's
say 12 1/2", is the replacement point. Has Zinn also been taken to
task for this "axiomatic proclamation", or is it that since most
people seem to agree with that statement they don't apply the same
standard as when they disagree? IOW, the "axiomatic proclamation" test
is not applied uniformly?

In this case, his "axiomatic proclamation" is correct, although he still
requires the reader to take it on faith. I would be much more happy with
the inclusion of an explanation, but then I'm an engineer who hangs
out on a technical bike news group.

Quoted message said:

I have tried other methods of lubricating and found that overall they
are more work than the hot wax method I use to accomplish my goals.

I'm sorry, it's hard to take that comment seriously from someone who
uses such an elaborate method.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As for your tandem timing chain wearing out prematurely, I'd hesitate
before accusing the seller of stiffing you with a pre-worn chain, it may
be that the timing chain was badly adjusted (or the rings eccentrically
mounted, etc.).

In retrospect there are other factors which lead me to this
unfortunate conclusion. I won't mention them here because they are
irrelevant to this discussion but I doubt I will ever purchase another
bike from this dealer. That will be a hardship for me since tandem
dealers are few and far between and we will have to drive hundreds of
miles to the next nearest dealer.

My sympathies, but you did accuse the dealer (in your post) of being
dishonest based only on rate of chain wear (the mechanism for which you
simultaneously admitted ignorance of).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If the Park tool works better for you with your eyesight problems, then
it's a worthwhile tool, but for most of us it's not a good choice since
it's $30 and not guaranteed to be more accurate (or quicker) than a
ruler -- IOW, a solution looking for a problem.

I paid a lot less than that, but the price of this tool is irrelevant
- the question is about it's accuracy. As I have already indicated in
a couple of other posts, I have found that when I checked the CC-2's
readings against a ruler's, the results have been comparable. No one
has yet shown me any data which meets the "axiomatic proclamation"
standard as articulated by Jobst Brandt. IOW, I have read a bunch of
theory, but I have not read of anyone who has actually checked the
accuracy of the CC-2 against a ruler. I would welcome reviewing such a
test. Until I have seen such a test, I must draw the conclusion that
the allegation that Park Tool's CC-2 is inaccurate is an axiomatic
proclamation.

If you Google, you'll find several examples of people reporting the
inaccuracy of chain measurement tools. IOW, the experience has been
variable. Rulers never lie. Did Zinn even mention using a ruler?

This is a technical NG, and its archives form an important resource. You
may find the criticism overzealous, but cycling has suffered from "myths
and lore" for decades. It's a worthwhile effort to try to set the record
straight. You should temper your indignation with the realization of
your relative ignorance. I've read Zinn, I've read Brandt -- there's no
comparison. I would think you'd be grateful that a guy like him would
spend the time to try to educate you a little, rather than getting all
tweaked about it.

Dans le message de news:[email hidden],
Peter Cole <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

This is a technical NG, and its archives form an important resource.
You may find the criticism overzealous, but cycling has suffered from
"myths and lore" for decades.

Just to be clear, myth and lore are contrapositives.
Myth is not good.
Lore is good.
Fin.

In article
<[email hidden]>,
"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Michael Press aka Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

HarryB said:

Well, how about this example: Zinn also writes, without any proof,
"The distance between these rivets should be 12 inches exactly. If it
is 12 1/8 inches or greater, replace the chain..." Isn't that also an
"axiomatic proclamation"? He doesn't offer any proof for this
statement. He does explain the effects of excessive wear on the
chainrings and cogs, but doesn't explain why 12 1/8" and not, let's
say 12 1/2", is the replacement point. Has Zinn also been taken to
task for this "axiomatic proclamation", or is it that since most
people seem to agree with that statement they don't apply the same
standard as when they disagree? IOW, the "axiomatic proclamation" test
is not applied uniformly?

At 12" 1/8 the cogs on the cogwheels of the rear wheel are
already badly worn. Replace your chain whenever it reaches
12' 1/16. Many people will tell you that they have
prematurely worn out cogwheels by running out of
specification chains. You should do the experiment
yourself. The essence of the scientific method is
reproducibility of reported results.

My local bicycle shop (35+ years in the business) uses a
simple rule of thumb. Put on a new chain, add lubricant
when it complains, throw it away after 1000 miles.

So your LBS have been throwing out perfectly good chains for 35 years?
We are NOT talking about an item such as helicopter rotor blades here
where failure will probably lead to the death of the occupants.

At $30-50 per replacement chain, I will certainly not be throwing them
out at 1,000 miles when they last much longer.

I pay considerably less. If someone wants to undertake the
work required to measure and clean their chain then he
will. They make it easy for people to maintain the drive
train on their bicycle. Look how much work it is to
explain maintenance of the drive train.

--
Michael Press

In article <[email hidden]>,

HarryB said:

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

HarryB said:

Well, how about this example: Zinn also writes, without any proof,
"The distance between these rivets should be 12 inches exactly. If it
is 12 1/8 inches or greater, replace the chain..." Isn't that also an
"axiomatic proclamation"? He doesn't offer any proof for this
statement. He does explain the effects of excessive wear on the
chainrings and cogs, but doesn't explain why 12 1/8" and not, let's
say 12 1/2", is the replacement point. Has Zinn also been taken to
task for this "axiomatic proclamation", or is it that since most
people seem to agree with that statement they don't apply the same
standard as when they disagree? IOW, the "axiomatic proclamation" test
is not applied uniformly?

At 12" 1/8 the cogs on the cogwheels of the rear wheel are
already badly worn. Replace your chain whenever it reaches
12' 1/16. Many people will tell you that they have
prematurely worn out cogwheels by running out of
specification chains. You should do the experiment
yourself. The essence of the scientific method is
reproducibility of reported results.

My local bicycle shop (35+ years in the business) uses a
simple rule of thumb. Put on a new chain, add lubricant
when it complains, throw it away after 1000 miles.

You (approvingly) cite your LBS's very unscientific method of
replacing chains after 1,000 miles of use. How do they know when a
chain has reached the 1,000 mile mark? Do they check the odometer of
each bike? And what evidence do they have that each and every chain is
worn out at the 1,000 mile point? That would become a very expensive
proposition for some riders. Even from this newbie's perspective I can
conclude quite quickly that your LBS doesn't have their customer's
best interest at heart if what you report is true. BTW, you aren't a
part owner of this LBS, are you?

What is the name of this LBS, so that others may be aware of this
practice?

It is scientific in that it has repeatably proven
effective keeping peoples bicycles running smoothly.

-- How do I know when I have gone 1000 miles?
-- Where do you ride, and when did you last replace the
chain?
-- I ride x-y-z 5 times a week. Last year.
-- OK. That is N miles.

Sheesh! Two sharp responses as if I am advocating the
dissolution of our nation's moral fiber. It is a bicycle
chain. Do what you will. I mention it to broaden people's
thinking; that is my crime.

I quote their years in business to suggest that they
effectively serve bicyclists.

--
Michael Press