Chain lube comparison

[Benjamin Lewis]

Pat Lamb wrote:

> Zoot Katz wrote:
>> 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
>
> OK, I'm convinced chainsaw oil is cheaper than any of the
> bicycling-labeled oils. That's one of cleaner, better lubricating,
> cheaper. Now anyone want to argue "Better"?

In my opinion, it's unquestionably better than White Lightning, at least if
you occasionally ride in the rain, don't like your chain to rust, and don't
like to have to replenish your lube every 30 km or so. I haven't tried any
of the others since I switched to bar oil from White Lightning, but I find
it difficult to imagine anything that would work significantly better for
me, and when the other lubes are 30 times the price, I have little
motivation to experiment with them.

White Lightning did indeed leave the outside of my chain cleaner, but it
gummed up my rear derailer more.

--
Benjamin Lewis

 

[Ken C. M.]

Benjamin Lewis wrote:
> Ken C. M. wrote:
>
>
>>landotter wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>
>
> You have a completely different experience with it than me, then. I use
> chainsaw bar oil, and it lasts hundreds of kilometers, rain or shine,
> whereas when I used a wax based lube, I had to replace every few days and
> every time I rode in the rain. On sporadically rainy brevets, I had to
> lube multiple times over the course of the ride.
>
> When I oil the chain, I put a single drop at one edge of each roller, and
> haven't experienced an unreasonably messy drive train.
>
Perhaps I would have a different experience if I used a different /
thicker wet type lube. But I still have the feeling that it would clog
with dust and dirt too quickly. Perhaps more testing will be needed.
Curious how about some homebrew combination of a hot wax and oil lube.
That would seem to be the best of both worlds.

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/

 

[[email protected]]

Leo Lichtman wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote : And why would that be? (not use 10W-30)
> >
> > In other words, got data?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I don't got no steenkin' data, but I got info. 10W-30 is equialent to a 10W
> oil at room temperature. In an engine, this allows easier cranking in cold
> climates. On a bike chain, it would be the same as using 10W oil, so if you
> want 30 weight, use 30 weight.

Nope. You've got it backwards. 10W-30 is roughly equivalent to SAE 10
oil at _low_ temperatures. IOW, it thickens up less at low
temperatures. At high temperatures, it's like an SAE 30 oil.

Mulit-viscosity oils have a more consistent (less variable) viscosity
as temperature changes.
Now that may not matter to most cyclists - but why would that be _bad_
for a chain?

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

Benjamin Lewis wrote:
>
> You have a completely different experience with it than me, then. I use
> chainsaw bar oil, and it lasts hundreds of kilometers, rain or shine,
> whereas when I used a wax based lube, I had to replace every few days and
> every time I rode in the rain. On sporadically rainy brevets, I had to
> lube multiple times over the course of the ride.

I'll note that all "wax based" lubes are not created equal!

I've tried a wax-in-solvent lube, and it was lousy. IME, it was
nowhere near as good as a hot-wax application - that is, the way I do
it with a torch. I don't have the problems you describe with my
method, nor did I have those problems when I used the hot dip method.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Benjamin Lewis]

[email protected] wrote:

>
> Benjamin Lewis wrote:
>>
>> You have a completely different experience with it than me, then. I use
>> chainsaw bar oil, and it lasts hundreds of kilometers, rain or shine,
>> whereas when I used a wax based lube, I had to replace every few days
>> and every time I rode in the rain. On sporadically rainy brevets, I had
>> to lube multiple times over the course of the ride.
>
> I'll note that all "wax based" lubes are not created equal!
>
> I've tried a wax-in-solvent lube, and it was lousy. IME, it was
> nowhere near as good as a hot-wax application - that is, the way I do
> it with a torch. I don't have the problems you describe with my
> method, nor did I have those problems when I used the hot dip method.

Do you ever do long (e.g. 300+ km) rainy rides? I'm curious whether the
wax would hold up in such circumstances. What do you do if your
lubrication runs out during a ride?

--
Benjamin Lewis

 

[Ken C. M.]

Benjamin Lewis wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>>Benjamin Lewis wrote:
>>
>>>You have a completely different experience with it than me, then. I use
>>>chainsaw bar oil, and it lasts hundreds of kilometers, rain or shine,
>>>whereas when I used a wax based lube, I had to replace every few days
>>>and every time I rode in the rain. On sporadically rainy brevets, I had
>>>to lube multiple times over the course of the ride.
>>
>>I'll note that all "wax based" lubes are not created equal!
>>
>>I've tried a wax-in-solvent lube, and it was lousy. IME, it was
>>nowhere near as good as a hot-wax application - that is, the way I do
>>it with a torch. I don't have the problems you describe with my
>>method, nor did I have those problems when I used the hot dip method.
>
>
> Do you ever do long (e.g. 300+ km) rainy rides? I'm curious whether the
> wax would hold up in such circumstances. What do you do if your
> lubrication runs out during a ride?
>
From what I know of those wax lubes, they do not hold up under such
conditions. I personally don't ride in conditions like that but if I
did, I might opt for a teflon enhanced lube like PED (which I used on my
first 1,200 mile tour).

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/

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

[email protected] wrote:
> Benjamin Lewis wrote:
> >
> > You have a completely different experience with it than me, then. I use
> > chainsaw bar oil, and it lasts hundreds of kilometers, rain or shine,
> > whereas when I used a wax based lube, I had to replace every few days and
> > every time I rode in the rain. On sporadically rainy brevets, I had to
> > lube multiple times over the course of the ride.
>
> I'll note that all "wax based" lubes are not created equal!
>
> I've tried a wax-in-solvent lube, and it was lousy. IME, it was
> nowhere near as good as a hot-wax application - that is, the way I do
> it with a torch. I don't have the problems you describe with my
> method, nor did I have those problems when I used the hot dip method.
>

Agreed, White Lightning and it's ilk are close to useless.

 

[Leo Lichtman]

<[email protected]> wrote: Nope. You've got it backwards. 10W-30 is
roughly equivalent to SAE 10 oil at _low_ temperatures.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think we are saying the same things, if we agree what we mean by "low
temperatures." I consider room temperature to be a low temperature compared
to the operating temperature of an engine. In any case, I think we agree
that a 10w-30 oil thickens less than a 30 weight oil as it cools.

 

[Bill Baka]

Leo Lichtman wrote:
> "Bill Baka" wrote: (clip) soak it in gasoline, and then soak it in
> something like 10W motor oil? (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> The motor oil should be hot. Because, when you soak it in gasoline (or any
> solvent,) you get penetration to the inside of the links. Then, when you
> soak it in oil, you want to evaporate the solvent from inside the links.
> Otherwise, the migration of the solvent out of the links, and the migration
> of the oil into the links will be very slow. If the oil is hot, the solvent
> will flash off, leaving the inside dry. That makes it easy for the oil to
> be sucked in as the chain cools.
>
> The use of heated oil also alows you to use a thicker oil, which will
> lubricate better and sling off less.
>
>
I forgot to mention the obvious, blow out the gas with an air hose and
let it dry for an hour in the sun if possible. Heating the oil is a good
idea too.
Bill

 

[Claire Petersky]

"landotter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> But as another mentioned: chains are a consumable, I mainly lube mine
> to keep it quiet, not to make it last longer.


Keep it quiet, or make it feel good? There's scarcely anything that feels as
nice as when it's stripped, cleaned, and then lubed up again.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
Sponsor me for the Big Climb! See: www.active.com/donate/cpetersky06
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

 

[Dane Buson]

Claire Petersky <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Keep it quiet, or make it feel good? There's scarcely anything that feels as
> nice as when it's stripped, cleaned, and then lubed up again.

I can't notice much difference between strip/clean/lube vs. just a
wipe/lube cycle personally. Either one seems to improve shifting and
noise pretty much identically. Honestly there's a heck of a lot better
ways to spend my limited bike fiddling time, like building up a nice 48
spoke rear wheel for my CrossCheck. [1]

It's a lot smarter in terms of opportunity cost to just change your
chain when it's time to. Even if cleaning it doubled the life it's not
really economical. [3] Unless fiddling with the chain is something you
*enjoy*, in which case all my arguments are as chaff and you should get
to scrubbing. ;-)

[1] Which I just laced up to the imitation speculative fiction done in a
film noir-ish fashion of "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow". It's
a shame that it got slammed so hard on release. But then I still listen
to Old Time Radio shows, so I'm hardly the person to ask. [2]
[2] Mandatory drooling: Ling Bai and Angelina Jolie, sigh.
[3] Unless of course you're clinically insane and run a $300 chain. [4]
[4] Mine are generally SRAM PC-59 bought on sale for $15 or so. [5]
[5] Friends don't let friends buy Shimano chains.

--
Dane Buson - [email protected]
"I reached for sleep and drew it round me like a blanket muffling pain
and thought together in the merciful dark."
--Mary Stewart English novelist, The Hollow Hills, 1973

 

[[email protected]]

Benjamin Lewis wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> > I've tried a wax-in-solvent lube, and it was lousy. IME, it was
> > nowhere near as good as a hot-wax application - that is, the way I do
> > it with a torch. I don't have the problems you describe with my
> > method, nor did I have those problems when I used the hot dip method.
>
> Do you ever do long (e.g. 300+ km) rainy rides? I'm curious whether the
> wax would hold up in such circumstances. What do you do if your
> lubrication runs out during a ride?

My normal rides are much shorter. My one-day max is 200 miles, but
that was maybe eight years ago, and it was hot and humid with no rain.
I've done lots of 100 milers, but it's rare for me to ride that
distance in the rain. These days, 30 miles to 50 miles is a more
typical recreational ride.

OTOH, my family and I did a three week tour of Ireland that saw rain
almost every day. #@!! And for our coast-to-coast USA ride, it was at
least two weeks before we had a day with no rain. #@!!

Briefly, my wax concoction holds up for perhaps a couple hundred really
wet miles. It holds up much longer if it sees little or no rain. On
tour, I carry a tiny bottle of motor oil, because there's no practical
way to wax.

I just checked my trip diary from that coast-to-coast, and I see that
we'd had about 180 miles of rainy days (rain every day, but not
continuous rain) when I first oiled the chains.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

Claire Petersky wrote:
> "landotter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > But as another mentioned: chains are a consumable, I mainly lube mine
> > to keep it quiet, not to make it last longer.
>
>
> Keep it quiet, or make it feel good? There's scarcely anything that feels as
> nice as when it's stripped, cleaned, and then lubed up again.

Claire, are you changing the subject?

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Patrick Lamb]

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 19:03:32 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:

>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.

I only saw two. One lumps wax and "dry lubes," whatever they are.
Sheldon leads off with, "This article is based on my personal and
professional experience and my own theories," and later says, "wax is
probably not as good a lubricant as oil or grease." Hardly a primary
source, either one of them.

Pat

Email address works as is.

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

Patrick Lamb wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 19:03:32 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> I only saw two. One lumps wax and "dry lubes," whatever they are.
> Sheldon leads off with, "This article is based on my personal and
> professional experience and my own theories," and later says, "wax is
> probably not as good a lubricant as oil or grease."


Also, Sheldon doesn't usually pull punches; seems he'll readily say
that (in his opinion) something is a bad/really bad idea. For Sheldon,
saying that X "is probably not as good as" Y is pretty mild, and hardly
a strong condemnation.



> Hardly a primary
> source, either one of them.
>

 

[Andrew Price]

On 28 Feb 2006 17:05:13 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>> Keep it quiet, or make it feel good? There's scarcely anything that feels as
>> nice as when it's stripped, cleaned, and then lubed up again.
>
>Claire, are you changing the subject?

"Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?" ...

 

[[email protected]]

Andrew Price wrote:
> On 28 Feb 2006 17:05:13 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >> Keep it quiet, or make it feel good? There's scarcely anything that feels as
> >> nice as when it's stripped, cleaned, and then lubed up again.
> >
> >Claire, are you changing the subject?
>
> "Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?" ...

That "whoosh" you just heard was a joke flying over your head.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Andrew Price]

On 1 Mar 2006 12:27:18 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>> "Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?" ...
>
>That "whoosh" you just heard was a joke flying over your head.

Waxed, no doubt !

 

[Matt O'Toole]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:46:53 -0800, Dane Buson wrote:

> It's a lot smarter in terms of opportunity cost to just change your
> chain when it's time to. Even if cleaning it doubled the life it's not
> really economical.

I disagree. It takes me about 10 minutes of actual work to clean and
relube my chain. The soaking and rinsing can take place while I'm doing
other work. Chains cost $25 if you're stuck paying the gringo price at
the LBS, which most of us are. I'd like to make $150/hr regularly, but...

> [3] Unless fiddling with the chain is something you *enjoy*, in which
> case all my arguments are as chaff and you should get to scrubbing. ;-)

I don't really enjoy it but it's not that big a deal.

> [4] Mine are generally SRAM PC-59 bought on sale for $15 or so. [5]

Don't forget shipping! How much time do you spend looking for sales? Be
honest!

> [5] Friends don't let friends buy Shimano chains.

They work fine for me, and are often on sale cheaper than the
SRAM ones (because everyone likes those better). KMC master links
eliminate the special pin issue, and are no more expensive than Shimano
pins. That said I do like SRAM chains better.

Matt O.

 

[Dane Buson]

Matt O'Toole <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:46:53 -0800, Dane Buson wrote:
>
>> It's a lot smarter in terms of opportunity cost to just change your
>> chain when it's time to. Even if cleaning it doubled the life it's not
>> really economical.
>
> I disagree. It takes me about 10 minutes of actual work to clean and
> relube my chain. The soaking and rinsing can take place while I'm doing
> other work. Chains cost $25 if you're stuck paying the gringo price at
> the LBS, which most of us are. I'd like to make $150/hr regularly, but...

Correction: 10 minutes * how ever many times you clean it.

Lets say you clean it every 250 miles. In 3000 miles that is eleven
times you take it off the bike and clean it. So two hours of work
minimum to double the life of a $25 chain. That's not counting the cost
of your degreaser or wear and tear on your scrub brush.

So, given the totally best case answer, instead of spending $50 ($25 *
2) on chains, you spend $25 dollars and spend 2 hours mucking about with
solvents and scrub brushes. You're paying yourself $12.50 an hour.

Now if you believe as I do, that you're only extending your chain life
10-25%, that I make significantly better than minimum wage, and I pick
up my chains on sale, your numbers end up quite different. It looks
more like the choice between spending $18.75 ($15 * 1.25) on chains, or
$15 dollars and all the muckery. i.e. $3.75 / 2 = $1.88 an hour.

The middle case of $30 vs. $15 = $7.50 an hour.

I am a very frugal fellow, FFS, I reuse zipties. But IMO, cleaning your
chain is the modern bicyclist equivalent of wearing a hair shirt.

>> [4] Mine are generally SRAM PC-59 bought on sale for $15 or so. [5]
>
> Don't forget shipping! How much time do you spend looking for sales? Be
> honest!

Yup, that's with shipping and everything. Nashbar sale + 10% coupon +
bulk order of many things I needed + getting 4 chains at a time = $15 a
chain. I probably look at sales for about an hour every two weeks or
so. Back when I needed more parts it was more, but I have most things I
need on hand now.

>> [5] Friends don't let friends buy Shimano chains.
>
> They work fine for me, and are often on sale cheaper than the
> SRAM ones (because everyone likes those better). KMC master links
> eliminate the special pin issue, and are no more expensive than Shimano
> pins. That said I do like SRAM chains better.

The only time I've used a Shimano chain it broke taking out my rear
derailleur and breaking multiple spokes. It only lasted 1000 miles.
And I hate the smell. Give me SRAM any day.

--
Dane Buson - [email protected]
He only knew his iron spine held up the sky -- he didn't realize his brain
had fallen to the ground.
-- The Book of Serenity