Chain lube comparison

[Ken C. M.]

SMS wrote:
> Ken C. M. wrote:
>
>> Perhaps your method may be worth trying, just as a test, but if it's
>> like most of the other wet lubes I have tried it will get clogged to
>> quickly. Just curious what part of the world do you live in? Whats the
>> environment like? Wet? Dry? A good mix?
>
>
> Northern California. I spend very little time on chain maintenance.
>
Ah well from what little I know of northern Cali, it seems that it may
not be as dusty as south Florida.

> I probably clean the chains a few times a year, and lube them every
> month or so.
>
> I was amazed to see that there are still people doing hot waxing, so
> many years after it's been shown to be ineffective. The liquid stuff
> like White Lightning is at least quick, and as long as you re-apply
> often I guess it's got its benefits. I can't imagine bothering to
> re-lube as often as is suggested for the liquid wax products.
Well, hot waxing seems pretty in-effective, not to mention time
consuming. But the liquid stuff I was given is quick and easy to apply.

Ken
--
You never have the wind with you - either it is against you or you're
having a good day. ~Daniel Behrman, The Man Who Loved Bicycles

Homepage: http://kcm-home.tripod.com/

 

[Ken C. M.]

Benjamin Lewis wrote:
> Ken C. M. wrote:
>
>
>>Perhaps your method may be worth trying, just as a test, but if it's like
>>most of the other wet lubes I have tried it will get clogged to
>>quickly.
>
>
> When you say "clogged", are you talking about appearance, or is it causing
> functional problems? (Any you are wiping off excess lube, right?)
>
Both, now as appearance goes that doesn't both me so much, but enough
that I back pedal through paper towels often. But I have noticed better
shifting and less noise with the dry wax lube. And yes I alway wipe off
the excess stuff.

Ken
--
You never have the wind with you - either it is against you or you're
having a good day. ~Daniel Behrman, The Man Who Loved Bicycles

Homepage: http://kcm-home.tripod.com/

 

[Matt O'Toole]

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:39:44 -0500, Ken C. M. wrote:

> Ah well from what little I know of northern Cali, it seems that it may
> not be as dusty as south Florida.

Maybe in a redwood forest, but most of CA has fine clay dirt that gets
ground to a powder from trail traffic. In summer it's ankle
deep in places, and like riding through tan flour. There is no harsher
environment for a bicycle chain.

After years of riding through this stuff, I've figured out there's little
difference in what lube you use. The key is wiping the outside of the
chain as clean as possible, before and after riding.

Matt O.

 

[SMS]

landotter wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>> Pat Lamb wrote:
>>
>>> Do you get your domains wholesale? Is it worth it to buy a new domain
>>> every time you get called on pompous pronouncements without anything to
>>> back them up?
>> I finally put up the chain web site as a result of all the
>> misinformation regarding waxing that has been popping up lately.
>
> But all you've done is put up another collection of misinformation.

If you see anything that is incorrect then please drop me an e-mail, and
I'll look into it.

 

[Patrick Lamb]

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 14:10:53 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:
>I was amazed to see that there are still people doing hot waxing, so
>many years after it's been shown to be ineffective. The liquid stuff
>like White Lightning is at least quick, and as long as you re-apply
>often I guess it's got its benefits. I can't imagine bothering to
>re-lube as often as is suggested for the liquid wax products.

You don't like it, so hot waxing has "been shown to be ineffective."
Citation, please?

Pat

Email address works as is.

 

[[email protected]]

SMS wrote:
>
> I strongly agree with the following statement, because it is based on
> factual information of the actual properties of the lubricant:
>
> "...motorcycle chain and chainsaw lubricants are better yet, because
> they have volatile solvents that allow good penetration for their
> relatively viscous lubricant. Paraffin (canning wax), although clean,
> works poorly because it is not mobile and cannot replenish the bearing
> surfaces once it has been displaced. This becomes apparent with any
> water that gets on the chain. It immediately squeaks."

You strongly agree with that statement because that statement agrees
with you. It's standard Scharf technique: quotations in place of
data.

>
> I've never used synthetic two-stroke oil, but if it's like most
> multi-weight motor oils, it's not suitable for chain lubrication.

And you know that because of what data?

IOW, you're still making pronouncements based on your personal opinion.
On the subject of chain lube, everyone seems to have a personal
opinion. Your declaring yourself to be an "expert" really, truly does
_not_ make you more knowledgeable than anyone else. And neither does a
hastily constructed web page!

Let's have some data.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

SMS wrote:
>
> What do you regard as pompous?

For one thing, your self-proclamation that you're an expert ...

> The fact that I simply restate what
> nearly everyone already knows, that wax is ineffective as a lubricant?

.... and the fact that you incessantly repeat your message, ignoring any
evidence presented to the contrary. For example, measured data from an
actual comparative test of chain lubrication methods, putting wax at
the top of the list for chain life.

Yes, when you think your unfounded opinions are worth more than data
and measurements, I think that's pompous.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[SMS]

Patrick Lamb wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 14:10:53 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> I was amazed to see that there are still people doing hot waxing, so
>> many years after it's been shown to be ineffective. The liquid stuff
>> like White Lightning is at least quick, and as long as you re-apply
>> often I guess it's got its benefits. I can't imagine bothering to
>> re-lube as often as is suggested for the liquid wax products.
>
> You don't like it, so hot waxing has "been shown to be ineffective."
> Citation, please?

There are three citations on the web site. Whether I don't like it or
not is immaterial.

 

[[email protected]]

SMS wrote:
> Zoot Katz wrote:
>
> >Chain saw bar oil is good stuff.
>
> It is unsurprising that the best lubricant for chains is a lubricant
> that is designed specifically for chains.

First, I don't doubt that chain saw bar oil is good stuff. For that
matter, so is motor oil, hypoid gear oil, motorcycle chain oil, the
bike shop's boutique bottles of magic, and wax with or without oil
blended in. They all work, in that when your chain squeaks, they'll
stop the squeaking just fine.

But the fact that they are "good stuff" doesn't make any one the
_best_.

And there's no guarantee that the best lubricant for a bike chain is
one designed for chains running at low tension, at a speed of roughly
1500 feet per minute, without being slung off by centrifugal action,
while chewing through wood, and being continuously replenished by a
pump. The requirements are completely different.

Lots of lubes are "good." If someone wants to proclaim a certain lube
to be "best" they'd better provide data. Or at least, tack on "IMHO."

Got any data?

- Frank Krygowski

 

[landotter]

Ken C. M. wrote:

> Now now, I am SURE that chain lube has a higher degree of lubricity than
> Amour brand lard! Perharp not much but definately some.


I never said that the poster was endorsing it for bicycle use. It does,
however, make a damn nice pie crust. Try that with your wax lube.

 

[landotter]

SMS wrote:
> landotter wrote:
> > SMS wrote:
> >> Pat Lamb wrote:
> >>
> >>> Do you get your domains wholesale? Is it worth it to buy a new domain
> >>> every time you get called on pompous pronouncements without anything to
> >>> back them up?
> >> I finally put up the chain web site as a result of all the
> >> misinformation regarding waxing that has been popping up lately.
> >
> > But all you've done is put up another collection of misinformation.
>
> If you see anything that is incorrect then please drop me an e-mail, and
> I'll look into it.

I guess I sounded a little antagonistic, and I don't mean to be. A lot
of your cleaning info is right on.

But the lube you recommend is indeed chain lube, but it's for chains
where it's "flung off" and meant to be replenished frequently.

 

[SMS]

landotter wrote:

> I guess I sounded a little antagonistic, and I don't mean to be. A lot
> of your cleaning info is right on.

I've long since stopped taking anything posted on Usenet personally. I
know that when it comes to chain cleaning and lubrication, that many
otherwise logical individuals don't look at the big picture.

> But the lube you recommend is indeed chain lube, but it's for chains
> where it's "flung off" and meant to be replenished frequently.

It isn't flung off when it's used on a bicycle chain.

 

[Zoot Katz]

On 27 Feb 2006 19:10:33 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>Lots of lubes are "good." If someone wants to proclaim a certain lube
>to be "best" they'd better provide data. Or at least, tack on "IMHO."
>
>Got any data?

Boeing Boeshield T9 4 oz $ 4.99
White Lightening 4 oz $ 3.99
Phil Wood Tenacious Oil 4 oz $ 2.99
Cling-Tuf Bar and Chain Oil, 128 oz $4.29
--
zk

 

[Zoot Katz]

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:11:58 -0500, "Ken C. M."
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>>I just looked at your method. Bar and chain oil?!? Well ok, I guess if
>>>it works for you.
>>
>>
>> That's what I started using after trying waxes. I found a gallon of
>> the winter grade stuff. What I like about it is that it lasts a long
>> time in this wet climate. About four times longer than wax in winter.
>> The cassette and idler pulleys seem to get scummier but the
>> lubrication keeps working. Chain saw bar oil is good stuff.
>
>Well I guess it depends mostly on the conditions that you ride in. Here
>in mostly dry south Florida it's dry, except for when you get caught in
>a summer thunderstorm. So most of the time it is pretty dusty and all
>the wet type lubricants I have tried just get clogged with dust and dirt
>too quickly.

I'm talking about the joe-bike urban mount that sees daily use
throughout the year. It's ridden in regular wetness of varying degrees
9 months of that year. Road dirt get thrown up as a slurry. If it's
bad, I just scrape the muck off the idler wheels and from between the
cog wheels before re-lubing. I lube a chain maybe five times before
tossing it. (~3000 Km)

Bar-oil looks and acts like Phil's Tenacious Oil. Different properties
than two-stroke oil. (yuck!)

I stopped buying fancy chain for the joe-bike but I've broken two of
the cheapo ones so I stopped buying those too. My chain costs are
about $2.00 per month for ~6000 Km per year. . . and, I spend minimal
time messing with the dirty things.

I haven't fanatically cleaned a chain in ages unless I was making it
into belt-buckles. The bike still shifts smoothly and pedals free.

I use a contact lens cleanser bottle for dispensing the bar oil one
drop at a time at each plate/roller contact point. Then I back pedal
and wipe off the outside plates with a rag dampened in mineral spirits
or WD-40. Then I forget about it for 600 Km or so.
--
zk

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
Zoot Katz <[email protected]> writes:

> Bar-oil looks and acts like Phil's Tenacious Oil. Different properties
> than two-stroke oil. (yuck!)

I once tried thinning it with cutting oil, but IIRC
the two oils just wanted to separate, I suppose because
of different specific gravities. A volatile solvent
like white gas might work, but I won't have that
kind of stuff around the house. I do find bar oil,
like so many petroleum derived lubes, flows better
on a warmed-up chain. Maybe warming the oil itself
(in a container immersed in warm water) would help
it flow easier too.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[landotter]

SMS wrote:
> landotter wrote:
>
> > I guess I sounded a little antagonistic, and I don't mean to be. A lot
> > of your cleaning info is right on.
>
> I've long since stopped taking anything posted on Usenet personally. I
> know that when it comes to chain cleaning and lubrication, that many
> otherwise logical individuals don't look at the big picture.
>
> > But the lube you recommend is indeed chain lube, but it's for chains
> > where it's "flung off" and meant to be replenished frequently.
>
> It isn't flung off when it's used on a bicycle chain.

no, but it stays put and invites its grits friends to party

Honestly, I don't give a donkey's butt about chain life, I just want
the damned drivetrain to shut up. So lube that keeps it quiet is my
grail.

 

[landotter]

SMS wrote:
> landotter wrote:
>
> > I guess I sounded a little antagonistic, and I don't mean to be. A lot
> > of your cleaning info is right on.
>
> I've long since stopped taking anything posted on Usenet personally. I
> know that when it comes to chain cleaning and lubrication, that many
> otherwise logical individuals don't look at the big picture.
>
> > But the lube you recommend is indeed chain lube, but it's for chains
> > where it's "flung off" and meant to be replenished frequently.
>
> It isn't flung off when it's used on a bicycle chain.

no, but it stays put and invites its grits friends to party

Honestly, I don't give a donkey's butt about chain life, I just want
the damned drivetrain to shut up. So lube that keeps it quiet is my
grail.

 

[Bill Baka]

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Zoot Katz <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>Bar-oil looks and acts like Phil's Tenacious Oil. Different properties
>>than two-stroke oil. (yuck!)
>
>
> I once tried thinning it with cutting oil, but IIRC
> the two oils just wanted to separate, I suppose because
> of different specific gravities. A volatile solvent
> like white gas might work, but I won't have that
> kind of stuff around the house. I do find bar oil,
> like so many petroleum derived lubes, flows better
> on a warmed-up chain. Maybe warming the oil itself
> (in a container immersed in warm water) would help
> it flow easier too.
>
>
> cheers,
> Tom
>
You guys seem to be taking this way too far. Why not just put in one
master link, and take off your chain every 3 months or so, soak it in
gasoline, and then soak it in something like 10W motor oil? I don't even
begin to think that hard about it, just carrying a chain break and a few
spare master links with me in case I do kill one, and then I can spend
the $10 or so on a new chain when I get home.
New topic, please.
Bill

 

[Ken C. M.]

landotter wrote:
> Ken C. M. wrote:
>
>
>>Now now, I am SURE that chain lube has a higher degree of lubricity than
>>Amour brand lard! Perharp not much but definately some.
>
>
>
> I never said that the poster was endorsing it for bicycle use. It does,
> however, make a damn nice pie crust. Try that with your wax lube.
>
Well I try to avoid things with lard. I would be more likely to use it
on a bike chain.

Ken
--
You never have the wind with you - either it is against you or you're
having a good day. ~Daniel Behrman, The Man Who Loved Bicycles

Homepage: http://kcm-home.tripod.com/

 

[Ken C. M.]

landotter wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>
>>landotter wrote:
>>
>>>SMS wrote:
>>>
>>>>Pat Lamb wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Do you get your domains wholesale? Is it worth it to buy a new domain
>>>>>every time you get called on pompous pronouncements without anything to
>>>>>back them up?
>>>>
>>>>I finally put up the chain web site as a result of all the
>>>>misinformation regarding waxing that has been popping up lately.
>>>
>>>But all you've done is put up another collection of misinformation.
>>
>>If you see anything that is incorrect then please drop me an e-mail, and
>>I'll look into it.
>
>
> I guess I sounded a little antagonistic, and I don't mean to be. A lot
> of your cleaning info is right on.
>
> But the lube you recommend is indeed chain lube, but it's for chains
> where it's "flung off" and meant to be replenished frequently.
>
Yeah that spin off is probably what keeps the wet lubes seeping out of
the side plates on a bike. And unless you like to stop and wipe your
chain down every few miles that stuff makes a hell of a mess of your
drive line. And needs to be re-applied often, but as is the case with
the wax lubes too.

Ken
--
You never have the wind with you - either it is against you or you're
having a good day. ~Daniel Behrman, The Man Who Loved Bicycles

Homepage: http://kcm-home.tripod.com/