Chain Maintenance

[Peter Storey]

Alex Rodriguez <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> These devices do an ok job at cleaning the outside of the
> chain. You want to clean the inside of the chain. That is
> where all the wear occurs. The outside of the chain is
> really unimporant. It only matters if you want to keep
> your clothes/leg clean.
> ----------------

I wonder. Is that really true?

It seems to me that keeping the inside of the chain well
lubed and grit free extends the life of the chain. But
assuming one would replace the chain at the proper level of
elongation (whether that's at 1500, 2500 or even 4000
miles), you'll save some money over time, but the effect on
cog life is neutral.

OTOH, I'd assume that a chain that is greasy/gritty on the
outside is constantly grinding away at cogs and chainrings.
Those babies are expensive and the replacement intervals
should be far longer.

Putting this all together, I would think that taking care of
the inside of the chain is important for extending the life
of a routine replacement part (the chain), but taking care
of the outside is just as important (or more so) for
extending the life of the drivetrain as a whole.

Comments?

Peter Storey

 

[Mark South]

"Peter Storey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Alex Rodriguez <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > These devices do an ok job at cleaning the outside of
> > the chain. You want to clean the inside of the chain.
> > That is where all the wear occurs.

Wear to the chain, yes. There's other wear to care about.

> > The outside of the chain is really unimporant. It only
> > matters if you want to keep your clothes/leg clean.
>
> I wonder. Is that really true?

Not totally - see your remarks below

> It seems to me that keeping the inside of the chain well
> lubed and grit free extends the life of the chain. But
> assuming one would replace the chain at the proper level
> of elongation (whether that's at 1500, 2500 or even 4000
> miles), you'll save some money over time, but the effect
> on cog life is neutral.

It's not clear from the available evidence that one can
affect the inside of the chain usefully between buying it
and throwing it out.

The existing test quoted recently here suggested that
solvents may remove lubrication from the inside of the
chain, but that replacing that lube is well-nigh impossible.

> OTOH, I'd assume that a chain that is greasy/gritty on the
> outside is constantly grinding away at cogs and
> chainrings. Those babies are expensive and the replacement
> intervals should be far longer.

Yes, that's why the outside of the chain should be kept as
clean as possible, also because grit on the outside can
potentially work its way inside.

> Putting this all together, I would think that taking care
> of the inside of the chain is important for extending the
> life of a routine replacement part (the chain),

Except it's unproven that one CAN take care of the inside.

> but taking care of the outside is just as important
> (or more so) for extending the life of the drivetrain
> as a whole.

Regarding the exterior of the chain, your comments are spot
on. Keep it clean.
--
Mark South: World Citizen, Net Denizen

 

[David Damerell]

Matt O'Toole <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug Huffman wrote:
>>I'd like a ultrasonic cleaner but my 15,000 mile (~3
>>years) per 240-link chain hardly justifies it then.
>If you're getting that kind of mileage, you're definately
>doing something right!

240-link chain implies a recumbent to me; the chain lasts
because each link passes the sprockets and chainrings
less often.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?

 

[Dan Daniel]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:40:57 +0200, "Mark South"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Except it's unproven that one CAN take care of the inside.
>

? This can't be hard to prove, at least as to being able to
remove and replace lubrication around the pins. No one has
done this?

 

[carlfogel]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:40:57 +0200, "Mark South"
<[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]

>The existing test quoted recently here suggested that
>solvents may remove lubrication from the inside of the
>chain, but that replacing that lube is well-nigh
>impossible.

[snip]

Dear Mark,

The report mentioned may not have been quite as definitive
as everyone would like.

Apart from that, the theory that lubrication can be removed
but not replaced leaves us wondering how any dust can ever
get into the chain's innards to cause wear, any wax can
enter to gladden the hearts fo the paraffin-lovers, or any
water can seep in to dissolve the wax and cause squeaking.

Come to think of it, isn't oil itself a solvent?

Carl Fogel

 

[Andrew Webster]

"Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> dvt wrote:
>
> > Matt O'Toole wrote:
>
> >> Again, the best method [of cleaning a chain] is
> >> probably an ultrasonic parts
> > > cleaner.
> >
> > I can't argue with that.
> >
> > > I've seen
> >> suitable ones selling on eBay for under $100 -- well
> >> worth it for a lifetime cyclist. It would pay for
> >> itself in 2-3 years.
> >
> > How do you figure? What costs will be saved by using a
> > chain cleaner?
> >
> > I like to spend $$$ on tools as much as the next tech-
> > nerd. And I think an ultrasonic cleaner would be handy
> > on many occaions. But I can't see the justification for
> > an ultrasonic cleaner.
>
> Well, if you go through 3-4 $20 chains a year like I do --
> you can cut this chain consumption by 2/3, in addition to
> the convenience and time savings. You can also use it for
> other stuff, and share with your bike-riding neighbors.
>
> Matt O.

I think you are making several assumptions here, not all of
which are valid.

1)Ultrasonic cleaning works better than other methods
2)Ultrasonic cleaned chains wear at 1/3 the rate of those
cleaned by other methods
3)Chains are ridden in their "clean" state all the time and
super clean chains aren't so afected by mud/rain/dirt as
ordinarily cleaned chains.

Assuption 3 is most open to challenge, (though assumption 2
needs evidence to support it).

If I clean a chain one weekend then I will ride it all week
before I clean it again, so if it is wet on Monday my chain
will have lots of water/grit/mud all over it all week. It
Doesn't matter how clean it was on Sunday when I fitted it,
it will still be ridden 200 miles or so in grotty state
before I get around to cleaning it again. In fact, this is a
"best case", I can rarely motivate myself to clean chains
more than fortnighty (about 400 miles). Even in the best
case of cleaning after each ride you are still putting miles
on a dirty chain while riding in poor conditions.

If you never ride in poor conditions your chain will rarely
need cleaning and do masses of miles (I have a bike I only
ride in the sunshine, I recently replaced a 1970s vintage
chain - OK I only do 500 miles a year or so on this bike,
and the chain was totally shot, but the fair weather use
makes the difference, not the cleaning regime).

I get about 3000 miles out of chains on all-weather bikes,
but in excess of 10,000 on my fair weather only bike (same
solvent cleaning regime).

So as I see it, clean weather bikes don't justify whizzo
cleaning processess, and all-weather bikes will only benefit
if you always clean the chain straight away after it gets
wet/muddy (though you will always do some miles with a poor
condition chain). If you do that much cleaning then just
about any effective cleaning procedure will
do.

I agree that generally cleaner is better, but unless you
can devise a method to clean it as you go along then chain
wear will always be sub-optimal so the law of diminishing
returns applies.

Andrew Webster

 

[Mark South]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:40:57 +0200, "Mark South"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >The existing test quoted recently here suggested that
> >solvents may remove lubrication from the inside of the
> >chain, but that replacing that lube is well-nigh
> >impossible.
>
> [snip]
>
> The report mentioned may not have been quite as definitive
> as everyone would like.

Granted, but there have been few objective tests described
here. One has to work with what is known.

> Apart from that, the theory that lubrication can be
> removed but not replaced leaves us wondering how any dust
> can ever get into the chain's innards to cause wear,

Dust is not inhibited by capillary action, and a lot of the
fine particles that wear the chain are ground from the
chain itself.

> any wax can enter to gladden the hearts fo the paraffin-
> lovers, or any water can seep in to dissolve the wax and
> cause squeaking.

I didn't say "theory", I said it's suggestive.

> Come to think of it, isn't oil itself a solvent?

Yes, but the oil that is thick enough to lubricate well
under the kind of loads carried by chain rollers is not very
penetrating. Hence my reservation.
--
Mark South: World Citizen, Net Denizen

 

[Mark South]

"Dan Daniel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:40:57 +0200, "Mark South"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >Except it's unproven that one CAN take care of the
> >inside.
> >
> ? This can't be hard to prove, at least as to being able
> to remove and replace lubrication around the pins. No one
> has done this?

Test data is eagerly awaited.
--
Mark South: World Citizen, Net Denizen

 

[Weisse Luft]

Any oil that will flow will eventually seep in between the rollers and flanged sideplates. That being said, you need to apply more than just a light spray to achieve this effect. Any lube lighter than 90W gear oil will instantly seek the inside voids and provide immediate benefit.

With solvent based waxes like WL, this happens rapidly BUT the evaporation of the solvent (pentane/hexane in the case of WL) is slowed on the internals and if you lube just before riding, you get minimal benefit as the moving surfaces pump the liquid lube out of the internals. This is the reason many people are sworn off WL. Another victim of failure to read and follow directions.

 

[Douglas Landau]

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

> > It seems to me that keeping the inside of the chain well
> > lubed and grit free extends the life of the chain. But
> > assuming one would replace the chain at the proper level
> > of elongation (whether that's at 1500, 2500 or even 4000
> > miles), you'll save some money over time, but the effect
> > on cog life is neutral.
>
> It's not clear from the available evidence that one can
> affect the inside of the chain usefully between buying it
> and throwing it out.

WTF??? It's absolutely clear.

> The existing test quoted recently here suggested that
> solvents may remove lubrication from the inside of the
> chain, but that replacing that lube is well-nigh
> impossible.

Ridiculous. It might be impossible, after the chain is
assembled, to get the exact same lube that the factory uses
inside the chain after it is assembled. But you can
definately get other lubes in there.

> > OTOH, I'd assume that a chain that is greasy/gritty on
> > the outside is constantly grinding away at cogs and
> > chainrings. Those babies are expensive and the
> > replacement intervals should be far longer.
>
> Yes, that's why the outside of the chain should be kept as
> clean as possible, also because grit on the outside can
> potentially work its way inside.
>

> > Putting this all together, I would think that taking
> > care of the inside of the chain is important for
> > extending the life of a routine replacement part (the
> > chain),
>
> Except it's unproven that one CAN take care of the inside.

Huh???? Mark where the f*ck are you getting all these
ridiculous statements? If you immerse a chain repeatedly and
the solvent turns dirty each time and then stops turning
dirty, then obviously it has gotten clean on the inside. If
you are not satisfied, you can bust pieces open and look
inside. It's easy to prove and I would guess that this been
proven many times by chain engineers, chain manufacturers,
interested consumers, etc.

If, after cleaning, you relube the chain, you can easily
verify that the lube got inside the chain. For example, you
could wipe the outside dry, then hang up the chain and watch
the lube drip back out from the inside. Or you could immerse
it in lube and watch the air bubbles rise when you agitate
it. You could even weight the remaining lube or bust the
chain open and look if you are still not satisfied.

From another starting point, our own jeverett tells us he
got 18,500 miles plus 1/64 of an inch of stretch from a dura-
ace chain. I on the other hand oil my chains when they're
dirty and get about 1000 miles on 1/16 of an inch stretch.

erett+chain+18,500+group:rec.bicycles.tech&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-
8&group=rec.bicycles.tech&selm=5vjers%248ra%241%40kirin.wwa-
.com&rnum=1 Read the whole thread.

> > but taking care of the outside is just as important (or
> > more so) for extending the life of the drivetrain as a
> > whole.
>
> Regarding the exterior of the chain, your comments are
> spot on. Keep it clean.

I doubt it. Evidence please? Do you have any evidence of
this? The rolling surfaces of even a very dirty chain always
look clean to me - and I don't think that sanding the sides
of a cog will hurt it much. I suspect that the dirt on the
outside of a chain contributes only trivially to tooth wear.
But I don't have any evidence so I'm not claiming it as
fact. Where is your data?

Doug

 

[Dan Daniel]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 22:51:06 +0200, "Mark South"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Dan Daniel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:40:57 +0200, "Mark South"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >Except it's unproven that one CAN take care of the
>> >inside.
>> >
>> ? This can't be hard to prove, at least as to being able
>> to remove and replace lubrication around the pins. No one
>> has done this?
>
>Test data is eagerly awaited.

I'll take the cutoff from my last chain installation into
work tomorrow. Not sure how to test for factory lube on the
pin and inside the roller. I used a degreaser on the whole
chain before cutting it, but it wasn't soaked and sloshed.
Any suggestions?

Do you think steel bluing is a good test for liquid
penetration inside the chain? I'll try that. And some
thinned lacquer paint on another piece.

 

[Terry Morse]

Jobst Brandt wrote:

> Are you seriously interpreting riding in the rain as chain
> cleaning or don't you ever ride in the rain? When a chain
> dries out after such an event it is usually squeaky clean
> inside and reasonably so outside.
>
> It is in that event that I have no qualms about oiling a
> chain that has not been flushed in solvent.

Hmm. After I ride in the rain, everything ends up filthy.
The rims, the brake pads, the downtube, the drivetrain, me.
The chain especially acts like a crud catcher. Maybe if it
started out clean, it would stay cleaner. But I'm not that
fastidious in the rainy season.

Maybe a full fender with mudguard would help.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

 

[Jobst Brandt]

Terry Morse writes:

>> Are you seriously interpreting riding in the rain as
>> chain cleaning or don't you ever ride in the rain? When a
>> chain dries out after such an event it is usually squeaky
>> clean inside and reasonably so outside.

>> It is in that event that I have no qualms about oiling a
>> chain that has not been flushed in solvent.

> Hmm. After I ride in the rain, everything ends up filthy.
> The rims, the brake pads, the downtube, the drivetrain,
> me. The chain especially acts like a crud catcher. Maybe
> if it started out clean, it would stay cleaner. But I'm
> not that fastidious in the rainy season.

> Maybe a full fender with mudguard would help.

I don't doubt that your bicycle gets dirty but the chain
(unless you are riding on dirt) is pretty clean. In fact
squeaky clean.

Jobst Brandt [email protected]

 

[Patrick Lamb]

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:50:49 GMT, [email protected]
wrote:

>Terry Morse writes:
>
>>> Are you seriously interpreting riding in the rain as
>>> chain cleaning or don't you ever ride in the rain? When
>>> a chain dries out after such an event it is usually
>>> squeaky clean inside and reasonably so outside.
>
>>> It is in that event that I have no qualms about oiling a
>>> chain that has not been flushed in solvent.
>
>> Hmm. After I ride in the rain, everything ends up filthy.
>> The rims, the brake pads, the downtube, the drivetrain,
>> me. The chain especially acts like a crud catcher. Maybe
>> if it started out clean, it would stay cleaner. But I'm
>> not that fastidious in the rainy season.
>
>> Maybe a full fender with mudguard would help.

Don't think so. At least it doesn't help the rims, brake
pads, or drivetrain, particularly the chain, for me.

>I don't doubt that your bicycle gets dirty but the chain
>(unless you are riding on dirt) is pretty clean. In fact
>squeaky clean.

I dislike a rainy commute precisely because the outside of
my chain is filthy afterwards. I don't think the roads where
I live are particularly dirty, as roads go, and they
certainly are paved. I'm curious how you can ride in the
rain and end up with a squeaky clean chain.

Pat

Email address works as is.

 

[Rob]

[email protected] (st556) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (TBGibb) wrote in message news:<20040609215645.29277.00000385@mb-
> m16.aol.com>...
> --
> > My best guess for why is that there is lubrication that
> > remains deep within the
> chain when one doesn't "solvent thrash" the chain.
> >
> >--
> > Tom Gibb <[email protected]>
>
> Right-O, solvent stay inna chain and further lube is
> trashed.
>
> But what the heck, some folks boil their gunky guitar
> strings too...
>
> ST

After following this thread for some time, I had to ask if
anyone has tried using the dishwasher for cleaning their
chain. It seems to me that as long as my wife doesn't find
out, the detergent, spray, hot water, etc of the dishwasher
may be effective. Any ideas?

Thanks,

Rob

 

[Matt O'Toole]

Rob wrote:

> [email protected] (st556) wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...

>> [email protected] (TBGibb) wrote in message news:<20040609215645.29277.00000385@mb-
>> m16.aol.com>... --

>>> My best guess for why is that there is lubrication that
>>> remains deep within the
>> chain when one doesn't "solvent thrash" the chain.

>> Right-O, solvent stay inna chain and further lube is
>> trashed.
>>
>> But what the heck, some folks boil their gunky guitar
>> strings too...

> After following this thread for some time, I had to ask if
> anyone has tried using the dishwasher for cleaning their
> chain. It seems to me that as long as my wife doesn't find
> out, the detergent, spray, hot water, etc of the
> dishwasher may be effective. Any ideas?

A dishwasher works well for many things, but I doubt it
would remove grit from inside the chain as well as
other methods.

Similar to boiling guitar strings, hot waxing supposedly can
boil dirt out of a chain. Hit the chain with degreaser
first, then rinse with water. Put it in the wax and heat it.
As the water boils out of the chain, it takes the dirt with
it. (At least that's the theory.)

Matt O.

 

[Francesco Devit]

Rob wrote:
>
> After following this thread for some time, I had to ask if
> anyone has tried using the dishwasher for cleaning their
> chain. It seems to me that as long as my wife doesn't find
> out, the detergent, spray, hot water, etc of the
> dishwasher may be effective. Any ideas?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rob

I tought the same, but never dared to do it! ...maybe
I'll give a try when the rest of the family is away on
holidays

Francesco

 

[Jobst Brandt]

Patrick Lamb <[email protected]> writes:

> I don't doubt that your bicycle gets dirty but the chain
> (unless you are riding on dirt) is pretty clean. In fact
> squeaky clean.

> I dislike a rainy commute precisely because the outside of
> my chain is filthy afterwards. I don't think the roads
> where I live are particularly dirty, as roads go, and they
> certainly are paved. I'm curious how you can ride in the
> rain and end up with a squeaky clean chain.

I mean that literally not figuratively. The chain will be
washed out and retain no oily solvent so it will be
squeaking as soon as it dries out. There being no oil or
grease, brushing the sand off the outside is trivial
because it easily falls off when running a rag over the back-
pedaled chain.

It's much like a shoddy steam cleaning with non sticky
residue on the outside.

Jobst Brandt [email protected]

 

[Dvt]

Patrick Lamb wrote:
>>Terry Morse writes:
>>>Hmm. After I ride in the rain, everything ends up filthy.
>>>The rims, the brake pads, the downtube, the drivetrain,
>>>me. The chain especially acts like a crud catcher....

>>>Maybe a full fender with mudguard would help.

> Don't think so. At least it doesn't help the rims, brake
> pads, or drivetrain, particularly the chain, for me.

I have been riding with full fenders plus mudflap for
several months now. I just broke my front fender about a
week ago. In the meantime, I've ridden on a few rainy days.
I noticed that my drivetrain gets *much* dirtier since the
fender has been broken.

The key is the mudflap. My mudflap is an old piece of
plastic riveted to the bottom of the front fender, extending
the fender's coverage down to within a few inches of the
ground. Since I added that mudflap, everything stays much
cleaner -- shoes, bike frame, cranks, chain, back rim, yadda
yadda yadda. I spend much less time cleaning my bike since I
added the mudflap.

After you've ridden clipless pedals for a few years, it's a
pain in the butt to use a bike with platform pedals. That's
about how I feel about riding in the rain with fenders and
mudflaps. I can do it, but I like to avoid it.

Thanks to the regulars here at r.b.tech for cluing me in on
the mudflap idea. I would have never come up with that one
on my own.

--
Dave dvt at psu dot edu

 

[Chris Zacho "Th]

Peter sait it best. Plain and simple. clean, lubed, and push
out as few pins as possible.

- -

"May you have the wind at your back. And a really low gear
for the hills!"

Chris Zacho ~ "Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

Chris'Z Corner http://www.geocities.com/czcorner