Cheaper degreasers than Muc-off

Quoted message said:

Having got through another litre of Muc-Off I set to wondering what
the cheaper alternatives were. Best prospect I saw was £4 for 2L of
Swarfega Oil & Grease Remover, which may even be soluble to form a
similar strengh to Muc-Off

http://www.screwfix.com/app/sfd/cat/pro.jsp?id=50166

What do others use?

A wet cloth (water) for the big stuff like frame & wheels. A dry rag or rag
dampened with white spirit or WD40 for the oily bits.

Actually, nothing over the last few weeks because the weather has been so
dry. But I will eventually have to wipe off the layer of fine dust that has
accumulated.

With frame paintwork and anodised components these days, dirt should come
off easily enough without the need for Muck-off or any special cleaning
products like that. Waste of money, maybe harmful as well.

~PB

in message <[email hidden]>,

(') said:

Having got through another litre of Muc-Off I set to wondering what
the cheaper alternatives were. Best prospect I saw was £4 for 2L of
Swarfega Oil & Grease Remover, which may even be soluble to form a
similar strengh to Muc-Off

http://www.screwfix.com/app/sfd/cat/pro.jsp?id=50166

What do others use?

Hot water with a little squirt of hair shampoo. Car shampoo would be better
but I don't keep it round the house. Don't use washing up detergent
because it is high in salts which damage the surface of the paint.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
"The result is a language that... not even its mother could
love. Like the camel, Common Lisp is a horse designed by
committee. Camels do have their uses."
;; Scott Fahlman, 7 March 1995

In article <[email hidden]>,
Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> writes:
|>
|> Hot water with a little squirt of hair shampoo. Car shampoo would be better
|> but I don't keep it round the house. Don't use washing up detergent
|> because it is high in salts which damage the surface of the paint.

Do you have any evidence for that? I have reason to believe that it
is somewhere between an urban myth and propaganda put out by the car
shampoo manufacturers.

For example, WHICH salts? And why should they damage a durable
paint? Even road salt doesn't - it is the aluminium that goes
first, followed by the steels.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Nick Maclaren said:

For example, WHICH salts? And why should they damage a durable
paint? Even road salt doesn't - it is the aluminium that goes
first, followed by the steels.

"Durable paint" isn't the problem while it's a continuous layer, but
most of us acquire chips in the durable paint from time to time. And
once we do, road salt will do its stuff.

It's not something one has to worry about on ceramics and stainless
steel cutlery, so no reason not to use the most easily available and
cheap salt going in your washing up liquid...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Nick Maclaren wrote on 03/05/2007 16:08 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Do you have any evidence for that? I have reason to believe that it
is somewhere between an urban myth and propaganda put out by the car
shampoo manufacturers.

For example, WHICH salts? And why should they damage a durable
paint? Even road salt doesn't - it is the aluminium that goes
first, followed by the steels.

I think the mistake is to associate salts generically with all washing
up liquids but most do contains reasonable amounts of salt [1,2]
although certainly not all of them. If you know which is which fine, if
not it is probably best to avoid them.

[1] See for example Persil washing up liquid ingredients at
http://www.unilever.com/pioti/EN/p4.asp?selectCountry=IE&language=EN&productid=2046399
[2] "The highest permitted content of inorganic salts is 1.5 %. The
highest permitted content of urea is 2 %. The phosphorous content in
washing-up liquid may not be higher than 1 % P........The requirement
regarding salt content is also included in order to deter diluted
products. Salt is often used to make washing-up liquid more viscous."
http://www.snf.se/pdf/bmv/bmv-kem-washup-crit.pdf

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

In article <[email hidden]>,
Tony Raven <[email hidden]> writes:
|>
|> I think the mistake is to associate salts generically with all washing
|> up liquids but most do contains reasonable amounts of salt [1,2]
|> although certainly not all of them. If you know which is which fine, if
|> not it is probably best to avoid them.
|>
|> [2] "The highest permitted content of inorganic salts is 1.5 %.

So, when diluted, we are talking about - what - 0.01%? Compared to
the 10% you can get from spray from a salted road.

That is infinitesimal compared to the amount that gets on a bicycle
from a salted road - and, unless you are the sort of person who
washes a bicycle off after every trip (including on getting into
work if you commute) in such conditions, it won't do any significant
damage compared to one ride across a salted road a year! I certainly
have noticed significant damage to aluminium and non-greasy chains
after a single working day following a trip in along a salted road.

I believe that this is an urban myth. I know that is is promulgated
by the car shampoo and windscreen wash suppliers, who sell the same
stuff as a low-salt household detergent at ten times the price.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Nick Maclaren wrote on 03/05/2007 17:12 +0100:

Quoted message said:

So, when diluted, we are talking about - what - 0.01%? Compared to
the 10% you can get from spray from a salted road.

Maybe but then even low salt concentration solutions can dry off to a
visible film of salt deposit which can, with humidity, do damage
expecially in those inaccessible places.

Quoted message said:

I believe that this is an urban myth. I know that is is promulgated
by the car shampoo and windscreen wash suppliers, who sell the same
stuff as a low-salt household detergent at ten times the price.

Maybe but its no myth that washing up liquid contains salt and why take
the risk if you don't need to? I also don't use Muc-off either because
it has a high alkali content which attacks and fades anodising colours
if left on, aside from its price.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

In article <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven <[email hidden]> writes:
|> Nick Maclaren wrote on 03/05/2007 17:12 +0100:
|> >
|> > So, when diluted, we are talking about - what - 0.01%? Compared to
|> > the 10% you can get from spray from a salted road.
|>
|> Maybe but then even low salt concentration solutions can dry off to a
|> visible film of salt deposit which can, with humidity, do damage
|> expecially in those inaccessible places.

Well, not really. The amount of salt left under such conditions will
be pro rata to the amount in the liquid in the first place.

|> > I believe that this is an urban myth. I know that is is promulgated
|> > by the car shampoo and windscreen wash suppliers, who sell the same
|> > stuff as a low-salt household detergent at ten times the price.
|>
|> Maybe but its no myth that washing up liquid contains salt and why take
|> the risk if you don't need to? I also don't use Muc-off either because
|> it has a high alkali content which attacks and fades anodising colours
|> if left on, aside from its price.

It's also no myth that many (actually, I would expect most) tap waters
contain more corrosive salts (often including common salt) than you will
be adding via the washing up liquid (i.e. 0.01%).

You clearly don't want to use rainwater, either, because of the sulphur
and nitrogen acids.

So that means that you should use distilled (or at least deionised)
water, right?

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Nick Maclaren wrote on 03/05/2007 17:36 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Well, not really. The amount of salt left under such conditions will
be pro rata to the amount in the liquid in the first place.

But potentially concentrated in its location by the drying process

Quoted message said:

So that means that you should use distilled (or at least deionised)
water, right?

Distilled yes; deionised no. Deionised water can be very corrosive as
it attempts to restore its ion content.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

In article <[email hidden]>,
Tony Raven <[email hidden]> writes:
|>
|> > So that means that you should use distilled (or at least deionised)
|> > water, right?
|>
|> Distilled yes; deionised no. Deionised water can be very corrosive as
|> it attempts to restore its ion content.

OK. I stand corrected. So are you REALLY saying that you should
always wash bicycles in distilled water? If you do that, it must
cost you a fortune!

If you don't, I fail to see why the amount of salt in washing-up
liquids makes a significant difference to the corrosiveness of your
washing water.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Having got through another litre of Muc-Off I set to wondering what
the cheaper alternatives were. Best prospect I saw was £4 for 2L of
Swarfega Oil & Grease Remover, which may even be soluble to form a
similar strengh to Muc-Off

http://www.screwfix.com/app/sfd/cat/pro.jsp?id=50166

What do others use?

DERV :-)

Nick Maclaren wrote on 03/05/2007 18:01 +0100:

Quoted message said:

If you don't, I fail to see why the amount of salt in washing-up
liquids makes a significant difference to the corrosiveness of your
washing water.

Tell you what Nick you wash your bike how you want.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

In article <[email hidden]>,
Tony Raven <[email hidden]> writes:
|> >
|> > If you don't, I fail to see why the amount of salt in washing-up
|> > liquids makes a significant difference to the corrosiveness of your
|> > washing water.
|>
|> Tell you what Nick you wash your bike how you want.

Well, I don't mind how you wash yours - do it in rose-water, if you
like - but I have a moral objection to essentially false urban myths,
and am going to continue to point out their falsehood whenever anyone
repeats them.

Naturally, any time anyone notices me promulgating a factual error,
I should appreciate being told - preferably politely :-)

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Tony Raven said:

Nick Maclaren wrote on 03/05/2007 17:12 +0100:

Quoted message said:

So, when diluted, we are talking about - what - 0.01%? Compared to
the 10% you can get from spray from a salted road.

Maybe but then even low salt concentration solutions can dry off to a
visible film of salt deposit which can, with humidity, do damage
expecially in those inaccessible places.

Quoted message said:

I believe that this is an urban myth. I know that is is promulgated
by the car shampoo and windscreen wash suppliers, who sell the same
stuff as a low-salt household detergent at ten times the price.

Maybe but its no myth that washing up liquid contains salt and why
take the risk if you don't need to? I also don't use Muc-off either
because it has a high alkali content which attacks and fades
anodising colours if left on, aside from its price.

So far, I've taken the risk because it's so effective, cheap and convenient.
But I'll give Simon's hair shampoo idea a go now. Can we confirm there's
no, or much less, salt in that?

~PB

In article <[email hidden]>,
"Pete Biggs" <[email hidden]> writes:
|>
|> So far, I've taken the risk because it's so effective, cheap and convenient.
|> But I'll give Simon's hair shampoo idea a go now. Can we confirm there's
|> no, or much less, salt in that?

I believe so, but there are a lot more complex organic molecules, and
they are known to damage some materials. My guess (and it is just a
wild, if educated, guess) is that washing-up liquid is marginally
more likely to damage the 'hard' components and shampoo marginally
more likely to damage the 'soft' ones. But they are essentially the
same thing (sodium laureth sulphate), with different additives.

Now, just to stir things up, you COULD use liquid soap (yes, real
soap and not detergent) in the form of Savona - which is sold as a
horticultural insecticide. That would have a completely different
set of characteristics :-)

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Rob Morley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Having got through another litre of Muc-Off I set to wondering what
the cheaper alternatives were. Best prospect I saw was £4 for 2L of
Swarfega Oil & Grease Remover, which may even be soluble to form a
similar strengh to Muc-Off

http://www.screwfix.com/app/sfd/cat/pro.jsp?id=50166

What do others use?

DERV :-)

I had a product recommended to me by my LBS which is a lot cheaper than Muc
Off and that's Fenwicks bike cleaner at £1 per sachet and two sachets will
dilute to a litre of cleaning fluid.

heres some blurb lofted from the EBC site:

Fenwick's FS-1 Concentrated Bike Cleaner
The only bike cleaner recommended by Specialized UK.
Fenwick's FS-1 is so concentrated, 1 litre makes 10 litres of bike wash.

Acid and caustic free, water soluble and biodegradable, 1 litre of FS1 is so
concentrated, it makes 11 litres of bike wash (the sachet makes 500ml), safe
enough to use on enamel paint, rubber seals, leather saddle.

* Brightens anodised aluminium, paint, plastics and decals.

* Safe on shock units, disc brakes, aluminium, steel, carbon fibre,
composites, plastics, decals, rubber and leather.

* Free from caustics, acids, solvents, metasillicates, abrasives and
silicon.

* Environmentally friendly and biodegradable

* Fenwick's FS-1 Concentrated Bike Cleaner can also be used undiluted as a
powerful degreaser for chains and so on.

* Fenwick's FS-1 rinses off with clean water - no need to jet-wash.

It's pretty good stuff. I lent sprayer/applicator to my neighbour who was
amazed at the ease at which is dislodged the dirt from her garage doors.

It was origianlly formulated for the external cleaning of caravans and
motorhomes so it might be worth while checking out the pricing of the
product at a caravan suppliers where it might be chaepaer still. A one
litre bottle of the stuff costs £10 and dilutes to create eleven litres of
cleaning fluid.

I've found that it does a great job on my bikes and is my first choice when
cleaning my bikes.

-=V=-

In article <[email hidden]>,
"vernon" <[email hidden]> writes:
|>
|> I had a product recommended to me by my LBS which is a lot cheaper than Muc
|> Off and that's Fenwicks bike cleaner at £1 per sachet and two sachets will
|> dilute to a litre of cleaning fluid.

LBS is a horticultural wholesaler :-)

What does the Fenwisks say it contains? Sodium laureth sulphate, I'll
be bound.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Nick Maclaren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What does the Fenwisks say it contains? Sodium laureth sulphate, I'll
be bound.

Oooh, that could prompt my little rant on products advertised as "Contains
no Sodium lauryl/laureth sulphate (SLS)". Look at the ingredients and they
typically contain ammmonium lauryl sulphate and salt. Now given that SLS/ALS
are ionic surfactants, can anybody tell me the difference?

cheers,
clive

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Having got through another litre of Muc-Off I set to wondering what
the cheaper alternatives were. Best prospect I saw was £4 for 2L of
Swarfega Oil & Grease Remover, which may even be soluble to form a
similar strengh to Muc-Off

Fenwicks. It's very good.