Chain oiler

Dave Kahn wrote:
> Looking at the report's conclusions it seems the aims of the research are to build an improved
> bicycle chain test rig and extend a theoretical model of the transmission. Both these aims seem
> admirable. However, when talking about the product the report says "Performance is not the only
> benefit of this system though, as the cleanliness of the chain leads to improved transmission
> lifespan, a cleaner bicycle and a cleaner rider". The missing words are "it is claimed that" or
> "there is some evidence that (see footnotes)".
>
> The report therefore endorses the product, but only by unsupported assertion. What on earth are
> comments like this doing in a supposedly academic paper?

I have only just read the paper and clearly the above critique is applicable. I am only guessing,
but I believe the product mentioned may be the Scottoiler which I have just bought for my new bike
before anything of the above discussion appeared here. I am not a bike technical man as all my
knowledge was gained 40+ years ago and is amazingly out of date so I hesitate to say much in such a
forum of experts as this. However I will say that I am very pleased indeed with my oiler, and
believe it certainly works to the great benefit of the chain. Should anyone be interested in a
description, or an account of my brief experience, I will be glad to supply
it.

 

Sam Ford writes:

>> The report therefore endorses the product, but only by unsupported assertion. What on earth are
>> comments like this doing in a supposedly academic paper?

> I have only just read the paper and clearly the above critique is applicable. I am only guessing,
> but I believe the product mentioned may be the Scottoiler which I have just bought for my new bike
> before anything of the above discussion appeared here. I am not a bike technical man as all my
> knowledge was gained 40+ years ago and is amazingly out of date so I hesitate to say much in such
> a forum of experts as this. However I will say that I am very pleased indeed with my oiler, and
> believe it certainly works to the great benefit of the chain. Should anyone be interested in a
> description, or an account of my brief experience, I will be glad to supply it.

How do you know it is benefitting the life of your chain? As mentioned in this regard, all
continuous (or even intermittent) oilers serve to collect surface grit on the chain and subsequently
to introduce it to the wear locations in the chain. I belive such mechanisms are designed more to
soothe the bicyclists concerns for the chain.

http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/8d.2.html

Jobst Brandt [email protected] Palo Alto CA

 

[email protected] wrote:
> Sam Ford writes:
>> However I will say that I am very pleased indeed with my oiler, and believe it certainly works to
>> the great benefit of the chain. Should anyone be interested in a description, or an account of my
>> brief experience, I will be glad to supply it.
>
> How do you know it is benefitting the life of your chain?
I don't - other than by a sort of instinct! Instincts of that sort can be sadly wrong of course.

> As mentioned in this regard, all continuous (or even intermittent) oilers serve to collect surface
> grit on the chain and subsequently to introduce it to the wear locations in the chain.
They can only 'collect' grit that lands upon the chain in any case. May I suggest that lubrication
which 'sticks' this grit to the external surfaces is as likely to so prevent it from getting into
the bearing surfaces as to introduce it there?

> I belive such mechanisms are designed more to soothe the bicyclists concerns for the chain.
It certainly does give me good feelings about my chain knowing that it is not running dry.

 

Sam Ford writes:

>>> However I will say that I am very pleased indeed with my oiler, and believe it certainly works
>>> to the great benefit of the chain. Should anyone be interested in a description, or an account
>>> of my brief experience, I will be glad to supply it.

>> How do you know it is benefitting the life of your chain?

> I don't - other than by a sort of instinct! Instincts of that sort can be sadly wrong of course.

Well, what is it that you instinctively think is occurring? Do you have a comparison test, such as
odometer readings when the chain reached x% elongation. I assume you measure your chain once in a
while to see how worn it is. This is done by holding an inch rule next to the bottom run of the
chain, aligning an inch mark with a chain pin and glancing at the pin 12 inches away. A new chain is
perfectly aligned and a worn on, say 1/8" has 1% wear, the outer limit of use. Going much beyond
1/16" rapidly damages aluminum chainwheels and wears rear sprockets more quickly.

>> As mentioned in this regard, all continuous (or even intermittent) oilers serve to collect
>> surface grit on the chain and subsequently to introduce it to the wear locations in the chain.

> They can only 'collect' grit that lands upon the chain in any case. May I suggest that lubrication
> which 'sticks' this grit to the external surfaces is as likely to so prevent it from getting into
> the bearing surfaces as to introduce it there?

...not if there is a supply of lubricant intended to penetrate to the chain innards.

>> I believe such mechanisms are designed more to soothe the bicyclists concerns for the chain.

> It certainly does give me good feelings about my chain knowing that it is not running dry.

...but deep in silent grit!

Jobst Brandt [email protected] Palo Alto CA

 

In article <[email protected]>, "Sam Ford" <samford[email protected]> wrote:

> It certainly does give me good feelings about my chain knowing that it is not running dry.

A clean dry chain will last longer than a wet dirty one lubricated with oil and grit. It'll be
squeaky and annoying, to be sure, but it will last longer.

This isn't like an engine, where the bearings of the main journals "float" on a very, very thin
layer of pressurized oil. In an engine, the speed of rotation and heat would destroy an unlubricated
bearing. An unlubricated bearing in a bicycle chain is only intermittently loaded and does not get
hot from friction.

BTW, a sealed chaincase with an oil bath will make a chain last for just about decades.

 

Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Sam Ford" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It certainly does give me good feelings about my chain knowing that it is not running dry.
>
> A clean dry chain will last longer than a wet dirty one lubricated with oil and grit. It'll be
> squeaky and annoying, to be sure, but it will last longer.
I have some difficulty in believing this I must admit. But no scientific information. Have you?

However: Given that I am past the age where removing a chain, cleaning it, oiling it and putting
back, which I can well see is the best solution, what are the alternatives?

Letting it run dry,

Using a wax product,

Or using this water based lubricant, applied while riding every 20 or 30 miles and frequently
washing it off with a hose.

I will take a lot of persuading that the last alternative isn't next best to the first. As to wax -
I know nothing about it.

> BTW, a sealed chaincase with an oil bath will make a chain last for just about decades.
This has been known to be the true solution for half a century to my certain knowledge. And is much
used in Holland, that land of dedicated cyclists. However I cannot see how it can ever be used with
derailler gearing.

 

Sam Ford wrote:
> However: Given that I am past the age where removing a chain, cleaning it, oiling it and putting
> back, which I can well see is the best solution, what are the alternatives?

This is quite an easy job, and a clean one, with a Powerlink* and a jar of white spirit (or mineral
spirits). Some complain that Powerlinks can't be undone by hand when chain is dirty but that has not
been my experience (with modern SRAM equipment).
* http://www.sram.com/product/chain/powerlink/index.asp

> Letting it run dry,

...Which ususually does take quite a long time.

> Using a wax product,
>
> Or using this water based lubricant, applied while riding every 20 or 30 miles and frequently
> washing it off with a hose.

Using a hose is not an attractive option for many cyclists. Personally, I don't have regular access
to a garden hose, and wouldn't want to use it frequently on the chain of my best bike anyway. I
don't want dirt going all over the wheel, etc, and I'm sure your chain with your device would get
very mucky if you didn't clean it for several rides. And in any case, hosing down a chain won't
remove all the grit from the innards.

> I will take a lot of persuading that the last alternative isn't next best to the first. As to wax
> - I know nothing about it.

Wax products, in my experience, can keep the chain remarkably clean compared to any oil, and go on
providing some lubrication as long as the weather isn't too wet.

~PB

 

On Tue, 08 Apr 2003 22:44:12 +0100, Sam Ford wrote:

> However: Given that I am past the age where removing a chain, cleaning it, oiling it and putting
> back, which I can well see is the best solution, what are the alternatives?

I didn't know there was an age limit on maintenance. When will I be too old to change my own tires?

Really, proper maintenance is still what it was 20 years ago. So is kerosene, and oil. And the chain
for that matter (well, maybe not what it was 30 years ago, but that is another topic). Clean your
chain and it will last better. But if you'd rather replace it, then do. But don't pretend that
drizzling miracle oil on it will keep it from wear.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Some people used to claim that, if enough monkeys sat in front _`\(,_ | of enough
typewriters and typed long enough, eventually one of (_)/ (_) | them would reproduce the
collected works of Shakespeare. The internet has proven this not to be the case.

 

relax l am on your side l think lol how l clean my chain off the bike, wipe, into a bottle of kero,
shake, into a bottle of cleaner kero, shake, wipe, in to a can of oil(deep enough to cover all the
chain), on the stove, heat and stir(up to about 200C l guess), let cool in can(my theory being that
all any kero/water/air in the chain will evaporate/expand and bubble out of the chain and when it
cools the oil will be forced in), hang up to drain, wipe, wipe, wipe, back on bike and wipe some
more now for my questions
1. how often should l do this?(ball park of course, its a MTB ridden on bike paths and single track)
2. are you saying l should smile to myself at the little squeaks l get when l ride?(they go away if
l wipe the chain down again, but that's a pain when l am out riding) thanks

 

Pete Biggs <pLime{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote:
> Sam Ford wrote:
>> However: Given that I am past the age where removing a chain, cleaning it, oiling it and putting
>> back, which I can well see is the best solution, what are the alternatives?
>
> This is quite an easy job, and a clean one, with a Powerlink* and a jar of white spirit (or
> mineral spirits). Some complain that Powerlinks can't be undone by hand when chain is dirty but
> that has not been my experience (with modern SRAM equipment).
> * http://www.sram.com/product/chain/powerlink/index.asp

I have seen some of the posts about that, but have never experienced
it. I don't have particularly strong hands and I have little trouble separating them. I just grab
two scraps of rag, grasp the chain firmly on each side of the link and fidget and push them
together. Sometimes it takes a minute, sometimes two, but I've never had problems getting
them apart.

--
Dane Jackson - z u v e m b i @ u n i x b i g o t s . o r g We'll try to cooperate fully with the
IRS, because, as citizens, we feel a strong patriotic duty not to go to jail. -- Dave Barry

 

David L. Johnson wrote:
> But don't pretend that drizzling miracle oil on it will keep it from wear.
I didn't understand that I had done that.

However may I emphasise that I would readily be able to accept the idea that merely applying oil of
any sort to the chain was insufficient (though I would still feel that it was better than nothing.)
But the treatment I have investing in does not do that. It applies a water soluble lubricant which
can frequently and easily be rinsed from the chain with a hose.

Frankly it seems slightly absurd to me to suggest that doing this is no easier than removing a
chain, soaking it in solvent, lubricating and then replacing it.

 

Sam Ford wrote:
> However may I emphasise that I would readily be able to accept the idea that merely applying oil
> of any sort to the chain was insufficient (though I would still feel that it was better than
> nothing.)

If it flushes grit into the innards, then it's worse than insufficient.

> But the treatment I have investing in does not do that. It applies a water soluble lubricant which
> can frequently and easily be rinsed from the chain with a hose.
>
> Frankly it seems slightly absurd to me to suggest that doing this is no easier than removing a
> chain, soaking it in solvent, lubricating and then replacing it.

It's harder if one doesn't have a hose and/or a place to use it! And hosing doesn't thoroughly clean
the chain anyway, plus there's a risk of getting water into wheel and bottom bracket bearings, etc.

If you are going to wash the chain after every ride or two rides, however, might as well use
something like 3-In-One (vegetable based) oil--which lasts a good few miles but does rinse off
relatively easily--and save the expense of the special device and lube.

~PB