Chain waxing + graphite question

[41]

Simon Cooper wrote:
> "41" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > HarryB wrote:
> > > On 22 Feb 2006 13:15:34 -0800, "Mike Krueger" <[email protected]>
> >
> > 1. Learn about combu stion. Useful melting point of paraffin: about
> > 190F. Flash Point: about 395F. Flammable materials do not need a flame
> > to explode in a spattering flaming death trap, they just need
> > sufficient temperature. The final heat source for melting paraf fin is
> > very rarely gong to be less than 395F- even if you use a double boiler,
> > something has to heat that, and who is going to boil a pot of water
> > with an element below 395F?
>
> Be helpful to know what you're talking about rather than assuming it...
> http://www.ilpi.com/msds/ref/flashpoint.html
>
> Hot wax ain't going to spontaneously combust.

Be helpful to know what you claim to be replying to, rather than
assuming it. I never claimed that wax is going to spontaneously
combust. I claimed that its flash point is 395 and that the heat source
for melting it is very rarely going to be less than that, in
implication much higher. The example under discussion was the element
of a stove, and the paraffin was spilled onto it. I know perfectly well
what the flash point is and that it is different from the ignition
point. The point was that the final heat source is typically well over
that. The original poster wrote in such a way to suggest that because
he was not using an open flame, he was automatically safe. You seem to
have conveniently overlooked that fact.`

 

[41]

HarryB wrote:
>We are, after all, discussing wax in a
> comparative context. IOW, if my waxed chain lasts 10,000 miles and
> your liquid lubricated chain lasts 10,000 miles, then you haven't
> proved that wax is a poorer lubricant than the liquid lubricant, even
> if you spin a theory claiming otherwise.
>
> Some people, apparently including you, claim that wax is a poor
> lubricant. If they mean that all lubricants, including wax, are poor
> lubricants because chains eventually wear out even though they are
> regularly lubr icated, I concur. But, if they mean that wax is a poorer
> lubricant than others, that is a false statement because some people
> claim to have gotten mileage with wax that at least equals that of
> other lubricants.

You are assuming that because your chains last and are quiet, wax is a
good lubricant. That is erroneous. In fact you are cleaning your chains
on what most of us who do not use wax would consider an extremely
frequent basis. No wonder they last. With the factory SRAM lubricant
out of the box, my chains run for thousands and thousands of miles in
dry conditions, without any relubrication whatsoever.

When you buy your chain new and clean it, but before waxing it, rub two
links together, and under pressure. Then do the same after you wax it.
Do you find the friction significantly reduced? Then (or rather before)
compare with oil or the factory lubricant. Then you will know what I
and MP and JB are talking about.

When I was an early teenager I tried paraffin once. I found (a) it
extemely hard to clean out all the residual oil before parafinning; (b)
it did not provide much if any lubrication (c) it kept the chain quiet,
but only for a relatively short span of miles; and (d) that it did not
stay so clean for all that long anyway. About the interval that the
waxers here are describing, when they need to start the whole thing all
over again. If you are going to clean your chain that often in dry
conditions, well, have at it.
s

 

[Simon Cooper]

"41" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Simon Cooper wrote:
> > "41" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > HarryB wrote:
> > >
> > > 1. Learn about combu stion. Useful melting point of paraffin: about
> > > 190F. Flash Point: about 395F. Flammable materials do not need a flame
> > > to explode in a spattering flaming death trap, they just need
> > > sufficient temperature. The final heat source for melting paraf fin is
> > > very rarely gong to be less than 395F- even if you use a double
boiler,
> > > something has to heat that, and who is going to boil a pot of water
> > > with an element below 395F?
> >
> > Be helpful to know what you're talking about rather than assuming it...
> > http://www.ilpi.com/msds/ref/flashpoint.html
> >
> > Hot wax ain't going to spontaneously combust.
>
> Be helpful to know what you claim to be replying to, rather than
> assuming it. I never claimed that wax is going to spontaneously
> combust. I claimed that its flash point is 395 and that the heat source
> for melting it is very rarely going to be less than that, in
> implication much higher. The example under discussion was the element
> of a stove, and the paraffin was spilled onto it.

Having done this before, I can tell you that hot wax spilled on a regular
hotplate in use doesn't catch fire. It evaporates. Same as pouring petrol
(flash point below freezing) over your hand (hotter than flashpoint) doesn't
cause it to burn. And a 750deg F soldering iron doesn't ignite wax either.

I might be interested in an example of petrol onto a stove hotplate, but I'd
probably still lay my bets on it not igniting. If anyone wants to
volunteer...?

> I know perfectly well what the flash point is

And your post above reads:
"Flash Point: about 395F. Flammable materials do not need a flame to explode
in a spattering flaming death trap, they just need sufficient temperature."
Which doesn't encourage one to believe you're differentiating between flash
and ignition points.

> The point was that the final heat source is typically well over that.

From your reply, the point really seems to be that flash point was the only
data you could find about wax.

 

[[email protected]]

41 wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > 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.

OK, I'm not properly replying to your post. I'm improperly noting that
waxing a chain needn't be hazardous. A person who wants to try it
should exercise reasonable care, but needn't invest in a fireproof
suit.

>
> >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.

Yep. I recommend doing that.

> > 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.

Another reason I like my method.



> > > 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.

OK, I'll do it. I've used oils of various types. And yes, I've used
the factory chain lube (although perhaps not Sram's lube - I honestly
can't remember). And I've wiped them down frequently. And there's no
comparison with the cleanliness of my method of wax lube. And again,
the filth that comes with oil lubes comes from normal riding. Even
with fenders, I'll note.

> > 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.

Whatever. If I handed you a chunk of the stuff I use and asked you
what it was, you'd say "It looks like wax to me." You would never
mistake it for oil. The percentage oil blended in is rather small.


>
>
> > 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.

I'll take your word for it. But let me ask - since I forget whether
you mentioned it - how dirty or clean is your chain after, say, 500
miles with the SRAM lube? And how often do you feel the need to wipe
black gunk off your chain?

> One lubricates not just for better wear, but especially for efficiency,
> as MP has noted.

I suppose there are different "ones" reading this. I don't detect any
efficiency problems with my chains, so I'm happy with the balance of
efficiency and cleanliness I get with my method. Don't worry, I won't
force you to use it.

> > 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":

Good!

> 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;

OK. Again, reasonable caution is necessary in everything we do, always
look both ways before crossing, wear your mittens, etc. But don't
worry excessively.

> (2) I noted that the factory
> lubricant is the best possible chain lubricant, with excellent
> cleanliness;

"Best possible" is certainly not proven! And, again, I suspect the
cleanliness is worse than what I'm using. But if your requirements are
different than mine, that's fine.

> and (3) that a properly oiled chain is a good second,

Likewise, unproven. You're stating your opinions. That's fine, but
not the final word!

> and
> that properly done, it can have "good" cleanliness as well.

Yes, for certain values of "good."

> 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..

I'd prefer paying attention to his own description of his usage.

Use what you like. But be careful to separate fact from opinion, and
to allow others their reasonable choices.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[HarryB]

On 1 Mar 2006 14:56:59 -0800, "41" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Simon Cooper wrote:
>> "41" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > HarryB wrote:
>> > > On 22 Feb 2006 13:15:34 -0800, "Mike Krueger" <[email protected]>
>> >
>> > 1. Learn about combu stion. Useful melting point of paraffin: about
>> > 190F. Flash Point: about 395F. Flammable materials do not need a flame
>> > to explode in a spattering flaming death trap, they just need
>> > sufficient temperature. The final heat source for melting paraf fin is
>> > very rarely gong to be less than 395F- even if you use a double boiler,
>> > something has to heat that, and who is going to boil a pot of water
>> > with an element below 395F?
>>
>> Be helpful to know what you're talking about rather than assuming it...
>> http://www.ilpi.com/msds/ref/flashpoint.html
>>
>> Hot wax ain't going to spontaneously combust.
>
>Be helpful to know what you claim to be replying to, rather than
>assuming it. I never claimed that wax is going to spontaneously
>combust. I claimed that its flash point is 395 and that the heat source
>for melting it is very rarely going to be less than that, in
>implication much higher. The example under discussion was the element
>of a stove, and the paraffin was spilled onto it. I know perfectly well
>what the flash point is and that it is different from the ignition
>point. The point was that the final heat source is typically well over
>that. The original poster wrote in such a way to suggest that because
>he was not using an open flame, he was automatically safe. You seem to
>have conveniently overlooked that fact.`
>
Have you any evidence that wax ever caught fire in a fry daddy? I
don't mean theoretical speculation, I mean an actual fire.

Remember, I was replying to someone who posted about a guy who burned
down his house because his wax spilled over onto an open flame. I use
a fry daddy outside and so there is no chance of me burning down my
house.

Harry

 

[HarryB]

On 1 Mar 2006 14:48:39 -0800, "41" <[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]
>> 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;
>
I was quite aware that combustion does not require a flame long before
you informed me. Which is why, for example, I always take any rags
soaked with mineral spirits outside to allow the mineral spirits to
evaporate. And I always "cook" my chain outside, although the main
reason I do so is because I don't like the smell of the hot wax in the
garage.
>
>(2) I noted that the factory
>lubricant is the best possible chain lubricant, with excellent
>cleanliness;
>
As I have clearly stated, my first priority is a clean chain, and the
lubes I have tried all resulted in a dirtier drive train than when
waxed.
>
>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..
>
I'm not sure what you mean by "... likely his usage is rather mild to
begin with." We ride a tandem so I wouldn't consider the torque on the
drive chain to be "mild", especially when we climb the 8 - 16% hills
we have around here. And, although we are rather new to the biking
scene, having only begun to ride a little over two years ago, I have
already put some 1,000 miles on my bikes in the last 2 months.

Harry

 

[41]

Simon Cooper wrote:
> "41" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> Having done this before, I can tell you that hot wax spilled on a regular
> hotplate in use doesn't cat ch fire. It evaporates.

There is a reason that the flash point is the basic fire safety data
point, and that the main cause of stove oil/grease fires is oil
dripping onto the stove. The fire point is not much above the flash
point, and the slightest static or combustive spark will cause ignition
and sustained combustion. Then try putting the fire in the melted pot
of paraffin out with water and you will have the explosive fireball
that was mentioned earlier.


> I might be interested in an example of petro l onto a stove hotplate, but I'd
> probably still lay my bets on it not igniting. If anyone wants to
> volunteer...?

There is no need for volunteers, the ignition points of gasolines start
at about 500F and this is easily and typically achieved by stove
elements and hot plates.


> And your post above reads:
> "Flash Point: about 395F. Flammable materials do n ot need a flame to explode
> in a spattering flaming death trap, they just need sufficient temperature."
> Which doesn't encourage one to believe you're differentiating between flash
> and ignition points.

Which doesn't encourage one to believe you are reading with any care.
Recall that I was not the one who started with the spattering flaming
death trap: someone else described that, and then HB replied that he
did not have to worry because he melted his paraffin without an open
flame.

> From your reply, the point really seems to be that flash point was the only
> data you could find about wax.

As a matter of fact, after searching for "msds paraffin" I went through
several of them before that post, finding only the flash point and
melting points, and not fire points or ignition points. Since as I said
the flash point is the standard fire safety data point, and for good
reason, and the fire point is generally not much above that, and since
these two and the ignition point are all highly correlated, I thought a
word to the wise would be sufficient. I see that it has not yet been.

Since you complained, today I also searched for '"fire point" paraffin'
and likewise "ignition" and found that it was not my fault that I was
unsuccessful:
<http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire03/PDF/f03032.pdf>
Note that even they have only the melting, flash and fire points, and
not ignition points.

Since FK pooh-poohed the idea of candles as a hazard, here is the
beginning of it:

IGNITION PROPENSITY AND HEAT FLUX PROFILES OF CANDLE FLAMES FOR FIRE
INVESTIGATION
Scott E. Dillon Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms - Fire Research
Lab, USA Anthony Hamins Building and Fire Research Laboratory National
Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899 USA

Common household open flame and radiant ignition sources are the actual
or suspected cause for many fires. Because of their popular use, fire
investigators have identified candles as one of the most important of
these ignition sources. In spite of this, the ignition potential from
candle flames is not well characterized and the properties of paraffin
wax are not easily accessible.
[...]
INTRODUCTION The use of candles in the U.S. has been increasing
annually since the early 1990's. According to the National Candle
Association (NCA), candles are used in 7 out of 10 homes, and retail
candle sales exceed approximately $2.3 billion annually with a growth
rate exceeding 15% [ 13. The increased use of candles has also resulted
in a corresponding increase in the number of candle related fires. The
U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) currently estimates that candles are
responsible for approximately 9,400 residential fires each year, 90
fatalities, $120.5 million in property loss, and 950 civilian injuries.
This accounts for more than twice the number of injuries averaged for
all residential fires [2]. [...]c

 

[41]

HarryB wrote:

> Have you any evidence that wax ever caught fire in a fry daddy? I
> don't mean theoretical speculation, I mean an actual fire.

Worldwide, how many people are using it do melt a pot of paraffin?
More than one?

 

[41]

HarryB wrote:
> On 1 Mar 2006 14:48:39 -0800, "41" <[email protected]> wrote:


> As I have clearly stated, my first priority is a clean chain, and the
> lubes I have tried all resulted in a dirtier drive train than when
> waxed.

I agree with all parts of this statement except for the part that
states that paraffin is a lubricant. I'm sure, at the intervals you
replenish it, your chain is clean and silent and long lasting. However,
you might try the experiment I suggested earlier, rubbing two links
together in the following states: dry, paraffined, and lubricated. You
may find that the order of slipperiness is 3, 1, 2.

> >
> >and (3) that a pr operly 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..
> >
> I'm not sure what you mean by "... likely his usage is rather mild to
> begin with." We ride a tandem so I wouldn't consider the torque on the
> drive chain to be "mild",

The torque aspect is not what I am referring to. In this regard it is
of hardly any matter. I mean that you ride in clean dry conditions.
Surely if your wife refuses to ride in the sunshine with an ordinary
chain, she will refuse to ride in the rain and grit with a paraffined
one.

1000 miles per two months is very good, especially for someone new to
the activity. Congratulations and happy riding.s

 

[41]

[email protected] wrote:
> 41 wrote:

> the filth that comes with oil lubes comes from normal riding. Even
> with fenders, I'll note.

I repeat: you might ask yourself then what that filth consists of. Then
consider why it is that you don't see it with paraffin.

> I'll take your word for it. But let me ask - since I forget whether
> you mentioned it - how dirty or clean is your chain after, say, 500
> miles with the SRAM lube? And how often do you feel the need to wipe
> b lack gunk off your chain?

I have no idea how to describe its state of cleanliness, other than
quite good, for a bicycle chain. I wouldn't eat off it. I don't
accumulate what I would refer to as black gunk riding in the dry, with
the factory lube . I already asked you to consider why that doesn't
happen with paraffin, and once answered you will know why it does not
happen, or happens to a much lesser extent, with the factory lube as
well.


> OK. Again, reasonable caution is necessary in everything we do, always
> look both ways before crossing, wear your mittens, etc. But don't
> worry excessively.

I don't worry at all because I don't do it at all. However, when I saw
the statements made by HB I thought a word to the wise was in order.
Do you disagree? Then read his original post again.

> "Best possible" is certainly not proven! And, again, I suspect the
> cl eanliness is worse than what I'm using.

Try the experiment rubbing two links together in dry, paraffined and
factory greased states and you will understand what I am saying. Of
course the cleanliness is not AS good as paraffin. I stated instead
that it was very clean or that the cleanliness was excellent. It is.


> > and (3) that a properly oiled chain is a good second,
>
> Likewise, unproven.

Rub. Prove.


> But be careful to separate fact from opinion, and
> to allow others their reasonable choices.

I wonder how on earth my posts merit these admonishments. Did you read
them??

 

[HarryB]

On 1 Mar 2006 21:27:38 -0800, "41" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>HarryB wrote:
>
>> Have you any evidence that wax ever caught fire in a fry daddy? I
>> don't mean theoretical speculation, I mean an actual fire.
>
>Worldwide, how many people are using it do melt a pot of paraffin?
>More than one?

Yes, more than one because the fry daddy wasn't my idea.

Harry

 

[HarryB]

On 1 Mar 2006 21:38:29 -0800, "41" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>HarryB wrote:
>> On 1 Mar 2006 14:48:39 -0800, "41" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> As I have clearly stated, my first priority is a clean chain, and the
>> lubes I have tried all resulted in a dirtier drive train than when
>> waxed.
>
>I agree with all parts of this statement except for the part that
>states that paraffin is a lubricant. I'm sure, at the intervals you
>replenish it, your chain is clean and silent and long lasting. However,
>you might try the experiment I suggested earlier, rubbing two links
>together in the following states: dry, paraffined, and lubricated. You
>may find that the order of slipperiness is 3, 1, 2.
>
I have learned a lot from this discussion, but what has been somewhat
lost is that I am quite content with my waxing method. (My original
question simply asked if adding graphite to the wax might increase
chain life.) As I have stated before, my first concern was
cleanliness with chain life being a second priority. Although a number
of people have commented that lube X is almost as clean as wax, pretty
much everybody seems to agree that whatever the merits (or lack
thereof) of waxing, you don't get a cleaner drive train.

I'm starting to see that what some people have been arguing is that
wax is not a lubricant at all. That may very well be the case, but I
still wonder why a chain that has been thoroughly cleaned of it's
original lubricant (as noted before, I thoroughly cleaned the chain
with mineral spirits, Simple Green, and hot water) doesn't wear any
faster than a chain lubricated with some kind of oil. The only test
data shown to me to date showed that a waxed chain lasted a lot longer
than chains lubed with something else. But, frankly, I don't care
about the theory because I have found something that works for me.
>
>> >
>> >and (3) that a pr operly 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..
>> >
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "... likely his usage is rather mild to
>> begin with." We ride a tandem so I wouldn't consider the torque on the
>> drive chain to be "mild",
>
>The torque aspect is not what I am referring to. In this regard it is
>of hardly any matter. I mean that you ride in clean dry conditions.
>Surely if your wife refuses to ride in the sunshine with an ordinary
>chain, she will refuse to ride in the rain and grit with a paraffined
>one.
>
No, in our relationship, my wife doesn't refuse to do anything. I
usually know what makes her happy and so I work hard to please her,
whether on the bike or off. The pay-off, besides her being my best
friend, is that she looks forward to our bike rides together. I know
she enjoys a clean looking bike, as do I, and so I spent time trying
to find ways to make cleaning the bike easier, and waxing the chains
has made cleaning the bike so much easier.

Yes, you are right about our riding conditions. We never begin a ride
in the rain, and will usually postpone a ride if it looks very likely
that it will rain. But, we have been caught in light rains as well as
heavy thunderstorms. That's just part of bike riding in the south.
>
>1000 miles per two months is very good, especially for someone new to
>the activity. Congratulations and happy riding.s
>
Thank you.

Riding the tandem has opened an exciting new world for us and we look
forward to each ride. A big disappointment for my wife is that there
are so few females that we ride with, and even fewer couples who have
the discipline and self-sacrifice to ride a tandem. The only time we
ride with another tandem team is at a tandem rally, and we can only
attend a few of those. But, we enjoy riding the countryside, enjoying
each other's company and the wonder of God's nature.

Harry

 

[Sandy]

Dans le message de news:[email protected],
HarryB <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

[TOTAL EXCISION OF STUFF]

Hey Harry !

Stop writing - go riding.
We are all thrilled you like your waxing.
I just oiled my chain today after 1500 km.
Ran it through a rag. It's not clean. It runs fine.
That was after 85 km in -1C and wind.
Go ride. Look at cutie's legs, clean and pretty.
Go ride. Stop writing. Please. Go ride.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

 

[Paul Kopit]

My comments are that hot waxing works with exceptions and limitation.
Chains and gears last longer. There is testimony. which I support,
that supports hot waxing works.

I have requested that knowledgeable contributors tell us why the
technique works but people insist that the practice doesn't work and I
feel that we've exhausted the negative reasons. Please join me in
continuing with some theory to why hot waxing might be acceptable.

In my mind, there is little to support the outside of the chain
mattering much in what form of lubing is requisite to wear or
performance. Certainly protection to corrosion is a factor. I've had
a waxed chain show rust withing 24 hours of being rained on. In
practice, I wipe the hot, chain as it comes out of the wax with a rag
and that gets rid of a great deal of the outside wax. If I just wax
the chain and don't wipe, I can see wax bits on the chain stay after
few miles.

I believe that the wax coats the inner part of the chain but is a poor
coating just like the outside of the links. When contacted, the wax
is likely displaced and will not flow back onto the surface of the
inner link. But, what happens to the wax particles, or wax 'dust'
that is displaced? Where does it go? What happens to the excess wax
that's inside the link after the molten wax solidifies? Perhaps the
answer to why waxing may work has to do with answers to these type of
questions than in coating metal surfaces or lubricating them.

 

[Pat Lamb]

Paul Kopit wrote:
> My comments are that hot waxing works with exceptions and limitation.
> Chains and gears last longer. There is testimony. which I support,
> that supports hot waxing works.
>
> I have requested that knowledgeable contributors tell us why the
> technique works but people insist that the practice doesn't work and I
> feel that we've exhausted the negative reasons. Please join me in
> continuing with some theory to why hot waxing might be acceptable.

Oh, goodie, theories!

Where is the load concentrated in a bike chain? I suspect it's in two
zones, the region between the pins and the side plates, and the swaged
region of the side plates and the roller.

Now really, you don't need any lubrication in the straight section of
chain. There's nothing moving inside the chain, so nothing can wear.
Only when the chain link bends to go around the sprocket or cog will you
have any need for lubrication.

Now, the pressure at the interfaces combined with the bending motion at
the cog will create heat if the interface isn't lubed. Even if we
assume solid wax provides no lubrication, I'd argue liquid wax is a
lubricant. The heat and pressure will melt the paraffin, then, which
will rapidly lubricate the joint.

Now if you've ever watched the wax while hot waxing, it takes a long
time for the bubbles to stop coming to the top. That's got to mean
there's a lot of volume inside the chain, between the rollers, pins, and
swaged side plates. That volume can provide a reservoir of wax to get
shredded into dust and migrate out into the interfaces, where it
provides a working lubricant. (As an aside, the new bushingless chains
may work better than the older style chains with bushings precisely
because they have this extra interior volume to act as a reservoir
feeding both active interfaces.) The liquid wax will prevent
metal-to-metal wear.

If there is enough heat to melt the wax at these interfaces, it's in a
small volume, and will rapidly dissipate. The wax would then solidify
quickly, providing a barrier against abrasive dust entering the
interface. This will prevent wear from outside abrasives.

OK, there's a theory. Let the shooting and shouting begin!

> In my mind, there is little to support the outside of the chain
> mattering much in what form of lubing is requisite to wear or
> performance. Certainly protection to corrosion is a factor. I've had
> a waxed chain show rust withing 24 hours of being rained on. In
> practice, I wipe the hot, chain as it comes out of the wax with a rag
> and that gets rid of a great deal of the outside wax. If I just wax
> the chain and don't wipe, I can see wax bits on the chain stay after
> few miles.


The rustiest chain I ever had was when I was using Pedro's Ice Wax. I
have to admit, I don't know the exact composition of my current mix --
it's something like 3/4 pound of paraffin and an ounce or two of 10W-30
motor oil. But I've abused the bike and chain with stunts like riding
home in the rain, shoving it in the garage, and running into the warm
house. No rust, even 2-3 weeks later. Maybe the oil is enough.

Pat

 

[[email protected]]

41 wrote:
>
> Since FK pooh-poohed the idea of candles as a hazard, here is the
> beginning of it:
>
> IGNITION PROPENSITY AND HEAT FLUX PROFILES OF CANDLE FLAMES FOR FIRE
> INVESTIGATION
> Scott E. Dillon Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms - Fire Research
> Lab, USA Anthony Hamins Building and Fire Research Laboratory National
> Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899 USA
>
> Common household open flame and radiant ignition sources are the actual
> or suspected cause for many fires. Because of their popular use, fire
> investigators have identified candles as one of the most important of
> these ignition sources. In spite of this, the ignition potential from
> candle flames is not well characterized and the properties of paraffin
> wax are not easily accessible.
> [...]
> INTRODUCTION The use of candles in the U.S. has been increasing
> annually since the early 1990's. According to the National Candle
> Association (NCA), candles are used in 7 out of 10 homes, and retail
> candle sales exceed approximately $2.3 billion annually with a growth
> rate exceeding 15% [ 13. The increased use of candles has also resulted
> in a corresponding increase in the number of candle related fires. The
> U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) currently estimates that candles are
> responsible for approximately 9,400 residential fires each year, 90
> fatalities, $120.5 million in property loss, and 950 civilian injuries.
> This accounts for more than twice the number of injuries averaged for
> all residential fires [2]. [...]c


I stand corrected! From now on, I shall do my best to be terrified of
candles! By golly, we should make those tools of the devil illegal!



- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

41 wrote:
> HarryB wrote:
> > On 1 Mar 2006 14:48:39 -0800, "41" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> > As I have clearly stated, my first priority is a clean chain, and the
> > lubes I have tried all resulted in a dirtier drive train than when
> > waxed.
>
> I agree with all parts of this statement except for the part that
> states that paraffin is a lubricant. I'm sure, at the intervals you
> replenish it, your chain is clean and silent and long lasting. However,
> you might try the experiment I suggested earlier, rubbing two links
> together in the following states: dry, paraffined, and lubricated. You
> may find that the order of slipperiness is 3, 1, 2.

One of the features of this discussion has been some people's
restrictive definition of "lubricant."

To be a lubricant, a substance does not need to provide the minimum
possible coefficient of friction. It does not even have to be liquid.
It certainly does not need to be a hydrocarbon-based liquid.

A practical definition of "lubricant" might be: some substance placed
between two surfaces in contact, that reduces friction and wear. As
I've said earlier, this includes many possibilities that people here
are rejecting.

Sure, one lubricant may leave a bit more friction than another
lubricant. That doesn't disqualify it from the definition.

Sure, some lubricants may be liquid, thus easily re-flow when
displaced. That doesn't disqualify lubricants that are solids. And
yes, there are recognized solid lubricants.

Lubricants include (in at least certain circumstances) graphite powder,
water, air, Teflon, gasoline, etc.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

41 wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > But let me ask - since I forget whether
> > you mentioned it - how dirty or clean is your chain after, say, 500
> > miles with the SRAM lube? And how often do you feel the need to wipe
> > b lack gunk off your chain?
>
> I have no idea how to describe its state of cleanliness, other than
> quite good, for a bicycle chain. I wouldn't eat off it. I don't
> accumulate what I would refer to as black gunk riding in the dry, with
> the factory lube .

Well, to define a chain's state of cleanliness at 500 miles, we could
look at (or describe) what sort of mark occurs on your skin if you
press your calf against the chain, then move it away - a classic "chain
tattoo." We could talk about that if the chain had been wiped down
with a dry rag before the ride, and if it hadn't.

Back in the days I oil lubed, at the 500 mile mark, if I hadn't
recently wiped the chain, the "chain tattoo" would be heavy, black,
impossible to miss and difficult to remove without serious scrubbing.

If I had wiped the chain down thoroughly in the past, oh, 20 miles, the
chain tattoo would be lighter, but still clearly visible, and still
difficult to remove.

With a chain waxed by my method, if I haven't wiped it down recently
(which, BTW, I rarely do) the chain tattoo is about like that of an
oiled chain recently wiped, but the tatoo is easy to wipe off with a
dry paper towel.

If I've wiped down the chain's outside (and, of course, the
chainrings), I would get no visible mark at all.

Pure paraffin, in my limited experience, is even cleaner. But it was
too prone to squeaking when wet for my taste.

Is your experience with SRAM's lube as clean as my experience with my
half-hearted waxing with my wax-oil blend?

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Werehatrack]

It seems odd to me that you appear to have acknowledged that the
information is valid which supports the "hot wax doesn't work well"
side, but yet you're trying to press forward with the search for what
makes it work. Isn't this an inherent contradiction?

BTW, FWIW, I tried hot wax as a chain lube a couple of years back, and
came to the fairly aburpt conclusion that conventional lubes do a much
better job.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[[email protected]]

41 wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > OK. Again, reasonable caution is necessary in everything we do, always
> > look both ways before crossing, wear your mittens, etc. But don't
> > worry excessively.
>
> I don't worry at all because I don't do it at all. However, when I saw
> the statements made by HB I thought a word to the wise was in order.
> Do you disagree? Then read his original post again.

Ah well. I guess I don't think that every hazard in this world needs
its own warning sticker... or heavy emphasis. And I get suspicious
when someone who is saying "Your method is wrong" begins tacking on
"Oh, and it's dangerous too."


> > But be careful to separate fact from opinion, and
> > to allow others their reasonable choices.
>
> I wonder how on earth my posts merit these admonishments. Did you read
> them??

Yes, of course.

FWIW, "I prefer SRAM lube" is, in my book, a perfectly fine statement.
So would be "I prefer peanut butter," although it would be more weird
in the present context. ;-)

"Oil causes less friction" is plausible enough that I won't challenge
it - although I'd be interested in data showing the degree of
difference. (Some differences are negligible.)

"XYZ is the best lube, and QRS is the second best" are another matter,
in my view. They are Scharfian pronouncements made without reference
to data, on a matter where personal preference (regarding, say, the
relative importance of friction and cleanliness) is quite important.

When you said "I noted that the factory lubricant is the best possible
chain lubricant, with excellent cleanliness; and that a properly oiled
chain is a good second" you were straying into Scharf territory.

- Frank Krygowski