Chain waxing + graphite question

[Ozark Bicycle]

G.T. wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > G.T. wrote:
> > > [email protected] wrote:
> > > > SMS wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>Michael Press wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>For only as long as it is present. The relative motion of
> > > >>>chain pin and chain plate drive the wax out of the mating
> > > >>>surface to which the wax never returns.
> > > >>
> > > >>This is such a simple fact that it's relatively amazing that it is
> > > >>beyond the grasp of some.
> > > >>
> > > >>Clean your chain with kerosene. Lube your chain with a lubricant
> > > >>designed for chains. Don't waste time and money on chain maintenance
> > > >>that is so clearly ineffective.
> > > >>
> > > >>Steve
> > > >>"http://nordicgroup.us/chain"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ah. Another authoritative pronouncement, with a complete lack of
> > > > evidence, from our "World's Greatest Authority."
> > > >
> > > > And yet ANOTHER Steven M. Scharf website, complete with yet another
> > > > "Myth" vs. "Fact" section, where the "facts" are actually SMS's
> > > > opinions.
> > > >
> > > > Note the usual Scharf website "features":
> > > >
> > > > * his self-promotion as an "expert."
> > > >
> > >
> > > And what subject is he not an "expert" in?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > There is no subject or field in which Scharf is not the ranking expert.
> > Just ask him.
> >
>
> All this time on rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, another area of his
> authoritay, I didn't even know that he owned a bike.
>
>

Perhaps he doesn't own a bike nor a digital camera, he just likes to
hear him self talk.

 

[G.T.]

"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> G.T. wrote:
>
> > All this time on rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, another area of his
> > authoritay, I didn't even know that he owned a bike.
>
> Well I guess you learn something new every day, huh? We have 12 bikes,
> including a tandem. You're very fortunate that you have the opportunity
> to learn from someone with knowledge on so many diverse subjects.
>
> Steve
>
> http://bicyclechain.info
> http://bicycleshortlist.com
> http://bicyclecoffeesystems.com

Ah, yes, that last one's been up for quite some time, eh? I'm pretty sure
I've run across it before.

Greg

 

[SMS]

G.T. wrote:

>> http://bicyclecoffeesystems.com
>
> Ah, yes, that last one's been up for quite some time, eh? I'm pretty sure
> I've run across it before.

I started that one somewhat as a joke, but it has become my site with
the most hits, and has generated the most free samples and affiliate
fees. But what is most amusing are some of the e-mails I've received as
a result of that site, including one that stated that I changed
someone's life with that site. Wow! Also, it's the site that's probably
the least controversial, though there is the occasional person that
still believes that coffee is a diuretic.

 

[Neal]

"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> G.T. wrote:
>
>>> http://bicyclecoffeesystems.com
>>
>> Ah, yes, that last one's been up for quite some time, eh? I'm pretty sure
>> I've run across it before.
>
> I started that one somewhat as a joke, but it has become my site with the most
> hits, and has generated the most free samples and affiliate fees. But what is
> most amusing are some of the e-mails I've received as a result of that site,
> including one that stated that I changed someone's life with that site. Wow!
> Also, it's the site that's probably the least controversial, though there is
> the occasional person that still believes that coffee is a diuretic.



Coffee is not a diuretic? I always thought it was and a quick Google search
shows many references to the fact that it is. Where can I read more about it
not being a diuretic?

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

Neal wrote:
> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > G.T. wrote:
> >
> >>> http://bicyclecoffeesystems.com
> >>
> >> Ah, yes, that last one's been up for quite some time, eh? I'm pretty sure
> >> I've run across it before.
> >
> > I started that one somewhat as a joke, but it has become my site with the most
> > hits, and has generated the most free samples and affiliate fees. But what is
> > most amusing are some of the e-mails I've received as a result of that site,
> > including one that stated that I changed someone's life with that site. Wow!
> > Also, it's the site that's probably the least controversial, though there is
> > the occasional person that still believes that coffee is a diuretic.
>
>
>
> Coffee is not a diuretic? I always thought it was and a quick Google search
> shows many references to the fact that it is. Where can I read more about it
> not being a diuretic?


Why on Scharf's website, of course. ;-)


(Coffee may not be a diuretic, but the caffeine in it apparently is. My
source? The label from an over-the-counter "water pill" [i.e., a
diuretic] lists the active ingerdient as Caffiene Anhydrous,
100mg/tablet.)

 

[G.T.]

"Neal" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:wwNMf.845$%[email protected]...
>
> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > G.T. wrote:
> >
> >>> http://bicyclecoffeesystems.com
> >>
> >> Ah, yes, that last one's been up for quite some time, eh? I'm pretty
sure
> >> I've run across it before.
> >
> > I started that one somewhat as a joke, but it has become my site with
the most
> > hits, and has generated the most free samples and affiliate fees. But
what is
> > most amusing are some of the e-mails I've received as a result of that
site,
> > including one that stated that I changed someone's life with that site.
Wow!
> > Also, it's the site that's probably the least controversial, though
there is
> > the occasional person that still believes that coffee is a diuretic.
>
>
>
> Coffee is not a diuretic? I always thought it was and a quick Google
search
> shows many references to the fact that it is. Where can I read more about
it
> not being a diuretic?
>

http://bicyclecoffeesystems.com/

HTH, HAND,
Greg

 

[SMS]

Neal wrote:
> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> G.T. wrote:
>>
>>>> http://bicyclecoffeesystems.com
>>> Ah, yes, that last one's been up for quite some time, eh? I'm pretty sure
>>> I've run across it before.
>> I started that one somewhat as a joke, but it has become my site with the most
>> hits, and has generated the most free samples and affiliate fees. But what is
>> most amusing are some of the e-mails I've received as a result of that site,
>> including one that stated that I changed someone's life with that site. Wow!
>> Also, it's the site that's probably the least controversial, though there is
>> the occasional person that still believes that coffee is a diuretic.
>
>
>
> Coffee is not a diuretic? I always thought it was and a quick Google search
> shows many references to the fact that it is. Where can I read more about it
> not being a diuretic?

Here's one source, there are many others:

"http://www.jacn.org/cgi/reprint/19/5/591.pdf"

 

[Patrick Lamb]

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:49:59 -0500, "Neal" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> What I don't
>understand about this never ending discussion about chain lubes is that one of
>the main reasons pro wax riders are using wax is so that their chain stays
>clean. I have never had a problem with dirty chains using Prolink. I wipe the
>chain off after every ride and very little dirt comes off. I use Prolink every
>100 miles and at that time the dirt comes out.

Maybe that's my problem -- I don't wipe my chain off after every ride.
I'll wipe it off after applying the Prolink, and again the next
morning, and after 2-3 days it looks just like it does after I've used
motor oil.

When I use hot doped (with oil) wax, OTOH, the chain looks clean.
It's reasonably clean to touch, even after a few wet rides, 150-200
miles later when I switch to a freshly waxed chain.

How come all the chains I've had to work on out on the road have been
gunky, oil or Prolink lubed chains?

Pat

Email address works as is.

 

[Jim Smith]

SMS <[email protected]> writes:

> Neal wrote:
>> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> G.T. wrote:
>>>
>>>>> http://bicyclecoffeesystems.com
>>>> Ah, yes, that last one's been up for quite some time, eh? I'm pretty sure
>>>> I've run across it before.
>>> I started that one somewhat as a joke, but it has become my site
>>> with the most hits, and has generated the most free samples and
>>> affiliate fees. But what is most amusing are some of the e-mails
>>> I've received as a result of that site, including one that stated
>>> that I changed someone's life with that site. Wow! Also, it's the
>>> site that's probably the least controversial, though there is the
>>> occasional person that still believes that coffee is a diuretic.
>> Coffee is not a diuretic? I always thought it was and a quick
>> Google search shows many references to the fact that it is. Where
>> can I read more about it not being a diuretic?
>
> Here's one source, there are many others:
>
> "http://www.jacn.org/cgi/reprint/19/5/591.pdf"

Dude,

Nowhere in that paper do they claim that coffee is not a
diuretic. Where did you get the idea that they do? As a matter of
fact, they even spend a paragraph discussing their results in light of
the fact that caffeine is a known diuretic.

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

Jim Smith wrote:
> SMS <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Neal wrote:
> >> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >>> G.T. wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> http://bicyclecoffeesystems.com
> >>>> Ah, yes, that last one's been up for quite some time, eh? I'm pretty sure
> >>>> I've run across it before.
> >>> I started that one somewhat as a joke, but it has become my site
> >>> with the most hits, and has generated the most free samples and
> >>> affiliate fees. But what is most amusing are some of the e-mails
> >>> I've received as a result of that site, including one that stated
> >>> that I changed someone's life with that site. Wow! Also, it's the
> >>> site that's probably the least controversial, though there is the
> >>> occasional person that still believes that coffee is a diuretic.
> >> Coffee is not a diuretic? I always thought it was and a quick
> >> Google search shows many references to the fact that it is. Where
> >> can I read more about it not being a diuretic?
> >
> > Here's one source, there are many others:
> >
> > "http://www.jacn.org/cgi/reprint/19/5/591.pdf"
>
> Dude,
>
> Nowhere in that paper do they claim that coffee is not a
> diuretic. Where did you get the idea that they do? As a matter of
> fact, they even spend a paragraph discussing their results in light of
> the fact that caffeine is a known diuretic.


You noticed that, too, eh?

 

[[email protected]]

Neal wrote:
> What I don't
> understand about this never ending discussion about chain lubes is that one of
> the main reasons pro wax riders are using wax is so that their chain stays
> clean. I have never had a problem with dirty chains using Prolink. I wipe the
> chain off after every ride...

I could never conceive of wiping my chain off after every ride!

I ride for recreation - but I also ride to work, I ride to the grocery,
I ride to the library and the bank and the hardware store, I ride to
visit friends... if I wiped the chain after every ride, I'd spend a
lot of time wiping!

And of course, I do a lot of that riding in ordinary clothes that
shouldn't have black chain marks. Hence my preference for a naturally
cleaner lubricant.

> I used wax years ago but would never go through all
> that trouble again. Just do what works for you.

A fine idea.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Simon Cooper]

"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> G.T. wrote:
>
> Steve
>
> http://bicyclechain.info
> http://bicycleshortlist.com
> http://bicyclecoffeesystems.com
> http://bicyclelighting.com
> http://commutebike.com
>
> http://digitalslrinfo.com
> http://digitalcamerashortlist.com
> http://batterydata.com

I think this is a list to put in your hosts file.

Just copy this list onto the bottom of your existing file, then do a global
replace of "http://" with "127.0.0.1 ".

 

[Sorni]

Jim Smith wrote:
> SMS <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Neal wrote:
>>> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> G.T. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> http://bicyclecoffeesystems.com
>>>>> Ah, yes, that last one's been up for quite some time, eh? I'm
>>>>> pretty sure I've run across it before.
>>>> I started that one somewhat as a joke, but it has become my site
>>>> with the most hits, and has generated the most free samples and
>>>> affiliate fees. But what is most amusing are some of the e-mails
>>>> I've received as a result of that site, including one that stated
>>>> that I changed someone's life with that site. Wow! Also, it's the
>>>> site that's probably the least controversial, though there is the
>>>> occasional person that still believes that coffee is a diuretic.
>>> Coffee is not a diuretic? I always thought it was and a quick
>>> Google search shows many references to the fact that it is. Where
>>> can I read more about it not being a diuretic?
>>
>> Here's one source, there are many others:
>>
>> "http://www.jacn.org/cgi/reprint/19/5/591.pdf"
>
> Dude,
>
> Nowhere in that paper do they claim that coffee is not a
> diuretic. Where did you get the idea that they do? As a matter of
> fact, they even spend a paragraph discussing their results in light of
> the fact that caffeine is a known diuretic.

So is water.

Bill "Dude!" S.

 

[G.T.]

Patrick Lamb wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:49:59 -0500, "Neal" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>What I don't
>>understand about this never ending discussion about chain lubes is that one of
>>the main reasons pro wax riders are using wax is so that their chain stays
>>clean. I have never had a problem with dirty chains using Prolink. I wipe the
>>chain off after every ride and very little dirt comes off. I use Prolink every
>>100 miles and at that time the dirt comes out.
>
>
> Maybe that's my problem -- I don't wipe my chain off after every ride.
> I'll wipe it off after applying the Prolink, and again the next
> morning, and after 2-3 days it looks just like it does after I've used
> motor oil.
>
> When I use hot doped (with oil) wax, OTOH, the chain looks clean.
> It's reasonably clean to touch, even after a few wet rides, 150-200
> miles later when I switch to a freshly waxed chain.
>
> How come all the chains I've had to work on out on the road have been
> gunky, oil or Prolink lubed chains?
>

Mine's not.

Greg
--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

Simon Cooper wrote:
> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > G.T. wrote:
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > http://bicyclechain.info
> > http://bicycleshortlist.com
> > http://bicyclecoffeesystems.com
> > http://bicyclelighting.com
> > http://commutebike.com
> >
> > http://digitalslrinfo.com
> > http://digitalcamerashortlist.com
> > http://batterydata.com
>
> I think this is a list to put in your hosts file.
>
> Just copy this list onto the bottom of your existing file, then do a global
> replace of "http://" with "127.0.0.1 ".


Yep, that would reduce the quantity of mis-information....

 

[SMS]

Jim Smith wrote:

> Nowhere in that paper do they claim that coffee is not a
> diuretic. Where did you get the idea that they do? As a matter of
> fact, they even spend a paragraph discussing their results in light of
> the fact that caffeine is a known diuretic.

The crux of the issue is that the small amount of caffeine has no effect
on the hydration provided by the large amount of water. All of the
studies on the issue showed no difference between caffeinated and
non-caffeinated beverages. It's not like you're swallowing a couple of
caffeine pills.

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Neal <[email protected]>:
>Coffee is not a diuretic? I always thought it was and a quick Google search
>shows many references to the fact that it is. Where can I read more about it
>not being a diuretic?

_Caffeine_ is a diuretic. However, a cup of coffee contains a small amount
of caffeine and a lot of water. It is less effective at quenching thirst
than a like amount of water, but it is still effective.

You can easily verify this for yourself; drink nothing but coffee for a
couple of days.

Likewise, mediaeval labourers who drank small beer did not die of thirst
even though alcohol is a diuretic.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is Potmos, March.

 

[41]

HarryB wrote:

> Because his flat was on the back and he didn't wax his chain, his
> hands were a greasy mess by the time he got done replacing his rear
> wheel.

No, that was because he didn't use a Columbine chain hanger or
equivalent. If you really care, you can always use a handy leaf to hold
the chain.

 

[41]

Michael Press wrote:

> What is really in ski `wax', and what does it do?

Traditional ski waxes were said to be mixtures of paraffin, rubber, and
beeswax. The beeswax is I suspect more for nordic ski-ing than Alpine.
"Basewax" is probably mostly beeswax.

Pure parrafin was only used for the "polar" waxes, intended for
temperatures of around -30°C. It is slow, flaky, hardly slippery at
all. Rubber was mixed in greater proportion for higher temperature
conditions. In nordic ski waxes, pine tar based waxes have been used
for temperatures greater than 0°C ("solid klister"). I have never been
able to find out the ingredients for liquid "klister" waxes, for above
0°C and for ice. Then again, I have never taken the time to do an
internet search, so who knows.

Nowadays there are also synthetic ingredients, and these waxes can cost
upwards of $100 for a small tin. They give greatly improved speed.

Ski waxes do not lubricated in the traditional sense of the word. Rub
them with a cork or your hand or metal, and they are not slippery. The
water layer does that, and presumably they do their job by somehow
creating the right electrical conditions for the snow/ice to melt. It
certainly isn't accomplished by either pressure or friction.

,

 

[41]

[email protected] wrote:
> 41 wrote:
> > HarryB wrote:
> > > On 22 Feb 2006 22:18:44 -0800, "41" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >HarryB wrote:
> > > >> On 22 Feb 2006 13:15:34 -0800, "Mike Krueger" <[email protected]>
> > > >
> > > > > >Consider this: there is a well-known racer around these parts who
> > > >> >_burned down his house_ a few years ago while waxing his bike chain....
> > > >
> > > >1. Learn about combustion. Useful melting point of paraffin: about
> > > >190F. Flash Poi nt: about 395F.
>
> I'm amazed that we seem to be moving into fear-mongering!
>
> Yes, if someone is going to wax their chain by the hot dip method,
> reasonable precautions are necessary. But please don't pretend that a
> flaming inferno is likely fro m the least error.

Please don't pretend that you are properly replying to my post, the
meat of which you nicely snipped. The poster I was addressing did not
understand combustion: he believed that because his heat source was not
a flame, he was automatically safe. I further informed him that a deep
fryer designed for oil is not necessarily safe for paraffin, whose
flash point is significantly lower than the smoke point of conventional
frying oils.

>Back when I used to
> hot-dip my chains, I did it outdoors using a pan of wax sitting
> directly on the burner of a camp stove. I simply worked with a very
> low flame. No double boiler, no electric appliance with temperature
> contr ols - and no big ball of flame, either. Granted, in these days of
> lawsuits, it's not the procedure I'd recommend; but it illustrates that
> the danger isn't great.

It illustrates that you kept your paraffin below the safe temperature.
If you exceeded the temperature, it would have ignited. That is all.
You make it sound like a random occurrence not based on temperature.

>
> These days I find it more convenient to leave the chain on the bike,
> crayon the wa x on and heat it with a low-flame propane torch in my
> basement workshop. Again, that's an open flame. I heat until the wax
> melts and flows into the pins. It's about as dangerous as burning a
> candle in the living room.

In fact you are no longer using a pot of paraffin, so you don't have
much to ignite anyway. The poster to whom I replied was not using your
method.


> Sure, there probably ar e people who'd like to outlaw candles! But
> those of us who are slightly more rational shouldn't overstate minimal
> dangers.

Oh, stop being ridiculous. Reread that poster's thread and realize that
he did not understand combustion. I informed him of some relevant
details in an entirely proper manner.


> > > And if you are referri ng
> > > to chain life, I expect my waxed chains will last at least as long as
> > > chains whi ch are lubricated with your suggested lubricants. Plus, my
> > > chains look whistle clean, which is important to me.
> >
> > Chain life depends on grit more than it does on lubrication. We know
> > this because there is no better condition than a well lubricated gritty
> > chain to grind it down. Your last line explains it all: if your chains
> > are whistle clean, you are not riding them in wet or dusty conditions,
> > where paraffin is of no help anyway, whether for lubrication or for
> > cleanliness. But since you are riding in clean conditions, your chain
> > will remain extremely clean with just the factory lubricant, and quite
> > clean with motor oil or chainsaw bar oil, wiped down thoroughly.
>
> Sorry, that's false. For years, I tried wiping my oiled chains down
> with cloth rags or paper towels. There's simply no comparison with the
> cleanliness of a wax lube.

What is false? I never set up that comparison. And have you ever tried
just sticking with the SRAM factory lube, as I recommended? It may not
be AS clean, but it is still very clean. And a far better lubricant.

> And in my experience, it doesn't take wet or dusty conditions to turn
> an oil-lubricated chain into a sticky black mess. It merely takes
> ordinary riding.

So then you might ask yourself what that black consists of, and how
paraffin prevents its appearance.


> 2) It doesn't work well in the rain. OK, for pure paraffin wax, I
> agree. As I've said, mixing a little oil in with the wax fixed that
> for me, at least for the amount of Ohio rain I normally deal with.
> Perhaps I wouldn't use this method if I lived in the Pacific Northwest?
> I can't say.

So in fact you do not wax your chains after all, at least not as
traditionally construed. You have oil which you keep in with a wax
seal.


> 3) Wax is a lousy lubricant, so your chain will wear out.

As I said, chains wear out more because of grit than lack of
lubrication. Wax keeps out grit, so I don't doubt that wear is not such
a great problem- especially since people here talk about cleaning their
chains and re-hot waxing them every 200-600 miles! Well of course the
chain will last long with such frequent cleaning. On the other hand the
SRAM factory lubricant will last for thousands of miles without a
thought in dry conditions. And you don't have to do any work to get it.

One lubricates not just for better wear, but especially for efficiency,
as MP has noted. Dry on dry metal is not very efficient. Try rubbing
two paraffin coated metal pieces together. I don't believe you will
find it any slipperier. In fact, in general you may find it less so.


> But if you're attempting to prove that what Harry and I are doing is
> wrong, don't just give proclamations that are contradicted by
> experiment and experience.

Read first, think second, post third. I did not attempt to prove that
waxing chains is "wrong": I (1) informed HB that combustion does not
require a flame to initiate, only sufficient temperature, and that the
relevant temperatures for oils, the intended application of a deep
frier, are much higher than for paraffin; (2) I noted that the factory
lubricant is the best possible chain lubricant, with excellent
cleanliness; and (3) that a properly oiled chain is a good second, and
that properly done, it can have "good" cleanliness as well. Finally, I
(4) noted that, since his chain is "whistle clean", the reason he is
having so much success, is likely that his usage is rather mild to
begin with..