Chain cleaning controversy!



"Smokey" wrote: (clip) I think most people over-lube their chains and
shorten their life with the dirt the excess lube attracts. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I've got a NEW theory. If you over lube the chain, the excess will sling
off, carrying the dirt with it. ;-)
 
Owen Pope wrote:
> "Leo Lichtman" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>
>>"Owen Pope" wrote: A scale? What would you use a scale
>>for? (clip) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>I'll bet you think he meant weigh the chain. Well, I think
>>he meant measure the chain.

>
>
> I did. I have never heard scale used like that before.

Owen -

A "machinist's scale" is a steel ruler that is usually divided up in a
decimal format rather than a fractional format. The divisions are
usually .010".

"Scale" is a common term in the machinery trades.

Cheers,

Tom
 
RonSonic wrote:
> On 3 Jul 2006 14:58:53 GMT, Owen Pope <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I was reading the VELONEWS website a few days ago, and I ran
>> across this article by Lennard Zinn:
>> http://www.velonews.com/tech/report/articles/10011.0.html
>>
>> In it he dispenses his advice on caring for chains, including
>> cleaning.
>> Zinn recommends simply wiping the chain off and re-lubing, as
>> opposed to shaking the chain in solvent.
>> The reasoning is that shaking in solvent will drive the gunk
>> further into the chain than possible by wiping it down.
>>
>> Since this is directly contrary to what I have done (I shake
>> in solvent), and since I trust the accumulated wisdom of
>> R.B.T. more than I do Mr. Zinn, I thought I'd put this out for
>> consideration.

>
> Whatev. That is the answer to chain cleaning controversy. Cleaner is
> better than dirtier. How thorough you need to be depends on how
> ready you are to replace them. How do you clean them? However makes
> sense to you.


Yup. I do as described above -- occasional wipe down with a rag (dry
usually; solvent once or twice a year) and dribble White Lightning on fairly
liberally. Know others who religiously remove, soak, clean, brush,
hell...POLISH 'em every week. Whatever suits ya, says I...

>> Also, he recommends using chain-length gauges, which I feel
>> deserves mockery.


> What's wrong with them. I don't use one, but then I don't throw bikes
> on a stand and work on dozens of them a day. If I did, then it'd make
> sense to just hang a guage off the stand and not have to handle a
> scale, dirty chain and reading glasses all at the same time.


Reading glasses, Gracie?!? Just hold that baby at ever-increasing arm's
length! (My Costco reading glasses started to wear out after a while; they
just don't make things appear as sharp as they used to. Darn cheap
specs...)

>> So get to it!

>
> bite me.


Bite old age.

Sorni
 
Sandy wrote:

> If only we had Harry back, with his waxed wife and chain, we could
> beat the head covering thingie thread. BTW, since I cut it off with a
> filter, tell me if it's still going for a universe record.


It's on life support. Nary a blip for a week or so, but then jtaylor got
out of the sanitarium and the pulse briefly quickened.

The plug wobbles in its fixture; an inadvertent brush with a leg should
finish the job...

Sorni
 
Leo Lichtman wrote:
> "Smokey" wrote: (clip) I think most people over-lube their chains and
> shorten their life with the dirt the excess lube attracts. (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I've got a NEW theory. If you over lube the chain, the excess will
> sling off, carrying the dirt with it. ;-)


Nice theory; filthy socks.

<eg>
 
Owen Pope wrote:
> The reasoning is that shaking in solvent will drive the gunk
> further into the chain than possible by wiping it down.


My reasoning is that it is simply too much trouble...

Regular slathering in "Kleen Guard" (then wiping off) with an
occasional application of oil (when necessary) prior to slathering...
seems to work very well. You can use Kleen Guard to clean and polish
your frame too while you're at it. My last chain went 5,000 miles with
~1/32" wear... and that was a lot of riding in the rain, too.

Good enough...
 
Owen Pope wrote:

> Zinn recommends simply wiping the chain off and re-lubing, as
> opposed to shaking the chain in solvent.

I have been doing the same for years, after I read an article in TOUR
magazine in which chains were cleaned with solvents and then examined in a
lab. They stated that cleaning with solvents is very harmful for your
chain, "since it destroys the original layer of grease inside your chain".

The article had illustrations of chains that had been taken apart. It was
clear that the chains that had been cleaned with solvents had far more
wear.

Gr, Derk
 
Bill Sornson wrote:

> Reading glasses, Gracie?!? Just hold that baby at ever-increasing arm's
> length! (My Costco reading glasses started to wear out after a while; they
> just don't make things appear as sharp as they used to. Darn cheap
> specs...)


Trouble is, your arms seem to get shorter as you age. Eventually
they're not long enough to hold the thing far enough away to be able to
focus on it.

--
Dave...
 
Owen Pope wrote:
> I was reading the VELONEWS website a few days ago, and I ran
> across this article by Lennard Zinn:
> http://www.velonews.com/tech/report/articles/10011.0.html
>
> In it he dispenses his advice on caring for chains, including
> cleaning.
> Zinn recommends simply wiping the chain off and re-lubing, as
> opposed to shaking the chain in solvent.
> The reasoning is that shaking in solvent will drive the gunk
> further into the chain than possible by wiping it down.
>
> Since this is directly contrary to what I have done (I shake
> in solvent), and since I trust the accumulated wisdom of
> R.B.T. more than I do Mr. Zinn, I thought I'd put this out for
> consideration.
>
> Also, he recommends using chain-length gauges, which I feel
> deserves mockery.
> So get to it!
>
> -Owen


Well, cleaning a chain removes all the gook, and dirt, and sand, which
does wear things out. Lubing only does 'flush' some of the gook and
**** out but not all of it. If ya want the chain and cogset to last a
while, use the whizbang snap links and take it off and clean it. I do
about once per month-700-900 miles or so.

Depends on the chain length gauge-Rohloff and CC-3, latest one from
park work well, are very accurrate and quick...early dial gauges were
indeed crappola-they measured a new chain as worn.
 
Owen Pope wrote:
> I was reading the VELONEWS website a few days ago, and I ran
> across this article by Lennard Zinn:
> http://www.velonews.com/tech/report/articles/10011.0.html
>
> In it he dispenses his advice on caring for chains, including
> cleaning.
> Zinn recommends simply wiping the chain off and re-lubing, as
> opposed to shaking the chain in solvent.
> The reasoning is that shaking in solvent will drive the gunk
> further into the chain than possible by wiping it down.
>
> Since this is directly contrary to what I have done (I shake
> in solvent), and since I trust the accumulated wisdom of
> R.B.T. more than I do Mr. Zinn, I thought I'd put this out for
> consideration.
>
> Also, he recommends using chain-length gauges, which I feel
> deserves mockery.
> So get to it!
>
> -Owen

Go ahead and mock the chain gauges, but for $10 It's much quicker and
more accurate. Using the ruler (er... scale) in a dimly lit area with a
slightly-concatenary chain is less appealing to me. The chain gauge
either fits or doesn't.
-Collin
 
On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 15:49:43 +0200, Derk <[email protected]> wrote:

>Owen Pope wrote:
>
>> Zinn recommends simply wiping the chain off and re-lubing, as
>> opposed to shaking the chain in solvent.

>I have been doing the same for years, after I read an article in TOUR
>magazine in which chains were cleaned with solvents and then examined in a
>lab. They stated that cleaning with solvents is very harmful for your
>chain, "since it destroys the original layer of grease inside your chain".
>
>The article had illustrations of chains that had been taken apart. It was
>clear that the chains that had been cleaned with solvents had far more
>wear.


Whoa, that worries me. But what is the chain is soaked in lube after
the solvent cleaning?

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 11:46:28 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 15:49:43 +0200, Derk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Owen Pope wrote:
>>
>>> Zinn recommends simply wiping the chain off and re-lubing, as
>>> opposed to shaking the chain in solvent.

>>I have been doing the same for years, after I read an article in TOUR
>>magazine in which chains were cleaned with solvents and then examined in a
>>lab. They stated that cleaning with solvents is very harmful for your
>>chain, "since it destroys the original layer of grease inside your chain".
>>
>>The article had illustrations of chains that had been taken apart. It was
>>clear that the chains that had been cleaned with solvents had far more
>>wear.

>
>Whoa, that worries me. But what is the chain is soaked in lube after
>the solvent cleaning?


I think we're getting pretty close to my "conclusion" the last time
this all came up.

The way I figure, if you clean OFF the bike, you need to lube OFF the
bike (lube bath).

If you clean ON the bike, you should lube ON the bike.

If the only way to truly get the grease, gunk, ****, and grime out
from the innards is a soak/agitate method, then it seems likely that's
the only way to get the lube IN there, too.

Just my $0.02. Academic, too. I've only cleaned off the bike a time
or two. Even with quick-links, more work than I wanted to do ;-)
 
On 3 Jul 2006 14:58:53 GMT, Owen Pope <[email protected]> wrote:

>I was reading the VELONEWS website a few days ago, and I ran
>across this article by Lennard Zinn:
>http://www.velonews.com/tech/report/articles/10011.0.html
>
>In it he dispenses his advice on caring for chains, including
>cleaning.
>Zinn recommends simply wiping the chain off and re-lubing, as
>opposed to shaking the chain in solvent.
>The reasoning is that shaking in solvent will drive the gunk
>further into the chain than possible by wiping it down.
>
>Since this is directly contrary to what I have done (I shake
>in solvent), and since I trust the accumulated wisdom of
>R.B.T. more than I do Mr. Zinn, I thought I'd put this out for
>consideration.
>
>Also, he recommends using chain-length gauges, which I feel
>deserves mockery.
>So get to it!


Pfui.

Having watched and/or been involved in far too many chain lube
discussions, my position is now "do whatever works for you."

As for chain wear gauges, I find them neither more nor less reliable
than an inexpertly employed tape measure. The tool is less important
than the user.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 15:49:43 +0200, Derk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Owen Pope wrote:


>>> Zinn recommends simply wiping the chain off and re-lubing, as
>>> opposed to shaking the chain in solvent.


>> I have been doing the same for years, after I read an article in TOUR
>> magazine in which chains were cleaned with solvents and then
>> examined in a lab. They stated that cleaning with solvents is very
>> harmful for your chain, "since it destroys the original layer of
>> grease inside your chain".
>>
>> The article had illustrations of chains that had been taken apart.
>> It was clear that the chains that had been cleaned with solvents had
>> far more wear.


> Whoa, that worries me. But what is the chain is soaked in lube after
> the solvent cleaning?


It just gets confused.

(Besides, seen Joan Rivers lately? You want your chain to end up like
that?)

Slow morning, Tech Savant Bill
 
Collin O'Neill wrote:

> Go ahead and mock the chain gauges, but for $10 It's much quicker and
> more accurate. Using the ruler (er... scale) in a dimly lit area with
> a slightly-concatenary chain is less appealing to me. The chain gauge
> either fits or doesn't.


"slighly-concatenary" (hyphenated, no less)?!?

5 entries found for concatenate.
con·cat·e·nate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-ktn-t, kn-)
tr.v. con·cat·e·nat·ed, con·cat·e·nat·ing, con·cat·e·nates
1.. To connect or link in a series or chain.
2.. Computer Science. To arrange (strings of characters) into a
chained list.

adj. (-nt, -nt)
Connected or linked in a series.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Late Latin concatnre, concatnt- : com-, com- + catnre, to bind (from
Latin catna, chain).]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

con·cate·nation n.

B+ for effort, however... BS
 
Bill Sornson wrote:

Sigh. Sorry about the silly attachment of bullet icons or whatever they
were. My (inadvertent) bad.
 
Neil Brooks writes:

>>>> Zinn recommends simply wiping the chain off and re-lubing, as
>>>> opposed to shaking the chain in solvent.


>>> I have been doing the same for years, after I read an article in
>>> TOUR magazine in which chains were cleaned with solvents and then
>>> examined in a lab. They stated that cleaning with solvents is very
>>> harmful for your chain, "since it destroys the original layer of
>>> grease inside your chain".


>>> The article had illustrations of chains that had been taken
>>> apart. It was clear that the chains that had been cleaned with
>>> solvents had far more wear.


>> Whoa, that worries me. But what is the chain is soaked in lube
>> after the solvent cleaning?


> I think we're getting pretty close to my "conclusion" the last time
> this all came up.


> The way I figure, if you clean OFF the bike, you need to lube OFF
> the bike (lube bath).


> If you clean ON the bike, you should lube ON the bike.


> If the only way to truly get the grease, gunk, ****, and grime out
> from the innards is a soak/agitate method, then it seems likely
> that's the only way to get the lube IN there, too.


Oil flows and prefers small gaps, called capillaries. Grit is a solid
and does not flow... unless oil is added to make it enter inside the
chain links to get on the link pins and wear them out.

> Just my $0.02. Academic, too. I've only cleaned off the bike a
> time or two. Even with quick-links, more work than I wanted to do.


So don't tell others how the don't care lazy guy does it. That
doesn't help folks who want to know what causes chain wear and how to
clean a chain.

Jobst Brandt
 
Peter Chisholm writes:

>> I was reading the VELONEWS website a few days ago, and I ran
>> across this article by Lennard Zinn:


http://www.velonews.com/tech/report/articles/10011.0.html

>> In it he dispenses his advice on caring for chains, including
>> cleaning. Zinn recommends simply wiping the chain off and
>> re-lubing, as opposed to shaking the chain in solvent. The
>> reasoning is that shaking in solvent will drive the gunk further
>> into the chain than possible by wiping it down.


>> Since this is directly contrary to what I have done (I shake in
>> solvent), and since I trust the accumulated wisdom of R.B.T. more
>> than I do Mr. Zinn, I thought I'd put this out for consideration.


>> Also, he recommends using chain-length gauges, which I feel
>> deserves mockery.


> Well, cleaning a chain removes all the gook, and dirt, and sand,
> which does wear things out. Lubing only does 'flush' some of the
> gook and **** out but not all of it. If ya want the chain and
> cogset to last a while, use the whizbang snap links and take it off
> and clean it. I do about once per month-700-900 miles or so.


> Depends on the chain length gauge-Rohloff and CC-3, latest one from
> park work well, are very accurate and quick... early dial gauges
> were indeed crappola-they measured a new chain as worn.


As I pointed out in earlier chain-letters, what is the wear criterion
for replacement wear used by the chain gauge folks and more to the
point, these devices all include roller clearance in their measurement
and this is not related to pitch elongation and should not be part of
the test. It is pin-to-pin spacing that counts and that is best
measured with a ruler or yardstick with inch units.

Jobst Brandt
 
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "slighly-concatenary" (hyphenated, no less)?!?
>
> 5 entries found for concatenate.
> con·cat·e·nate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-ktn-t, kn-)
> tr.v. con·cat·e·nat·ed, con·cat·e·nat·ing, con·cat·e·nates
> 1.. To connect or link in a series or chain.
> 2.. Computer Science. To arrange (strings of characters) into a
> chained list.
>
> adj. (-nt, -nt)
> Connected or linked in a series.


Well, if we're going to get pedantic, look up "catenary". I THINK that was
what he meant. If you want to save the time, it's a curve. Power lines
describe the curve when they hang between poles. Obviously the length of
wire is greater than the distance between the points at which they're fixed.
 
Ludmila Borgschatz-Thudpucker, MD wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "slighly-concatenary" (hyphenated, no less)?!?
>>
>> 5 entries found for concatenate.
>> con·cat·e·nate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-ktn-t, kn-)
>> tr.v. con·cat·e·nat·ed, con·cat·e·nat·ing, con·cat·e·nates
>> 1.. To connect or link in a series or chain.
>> 2.. Computer Science. To arrange (strings of characters) into
>> a chained list.
>>
>> adj. (-nt, -nt)
>> Connected or linked in a series.

>
> Well, if we're going to get pedantic, look up "catenary". I THINK
> that was what he meant. If you want to save the time, it's a curve. Power
> lines describe the curve when they hang between poles. Obviously the
> length of wire is greater than the distance between the
> points at which they're fixed.


Yes, I already knew that word (came up in here, IIRC); had just never heard
of "concatenary". Perhaps he concocted the word between the two (catenary
and concatenate)?

Concoctenary?!? <eg>