Re extending life of chain etc

[geepeetee]

Hi

Thanks for replies to my first post they were helpful (sorry about the
duplicate post, that was a mistake). From the replies it seems like
changing the chain at approx 2k miles (6 months in my case) would probably
give a longer life out of the whole system.

Any advice on the best lube to use, also what is the best method of
'cleaning' the chain. I have been removing it, degreasing and then soaking
it in a bath of thin oil.

thanks

Gary

 

[Frank Krygowski]

geepeetee wrote:

> Any advice on the best lube to use...

Careful, you're straying into an area dominated by dogmatic beliefs.
It's hard to discuss this without starting blazing religous wars.

Many people use expensive unctions sold in tiny, expensive bottles. Of
course, each brand is definitely better than every other brand.

Some people say those concoctions are just chainsaw oil, or motor oil,
or gear oil, bought in 55 gallon drums and re-sold at a profit. Those
people use either chainsaw oil, or motor oil, or gear oil. Of course,
the motor oilers know it's better than chainsaw oil, and vice versa, and
verse visa. Those holding the tiny expensive bottles just scoff.

Then there are the hot waxers, who scoff at all liquids, no matter how
big the container. They know that anything wet just attracts grit and
wears the chain, so they go for dry wax, melting it in a pan and
submerging the chain. They can be recognized at a distance by their
relatively clean drivetrains - but much sooner by their beards, bellies
and knickers.

Then there are the liquid waxers. Wax is good, they say, as long as it
comes in a tiny expensive bottle. They buy their bottles by the gross,
since the instructions say to apply the stuff about once per hour.

As usual, I don't fit very well into any of these groups. For example,
I hardly ever wear knickers lately.


Seriously, this has been discussed ad infinitum. Check the FAQs, or the
archives. (The FAQ pointer comes up about once a week.)

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

 

[maxo]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 22:38:02 +0100, geepeetee wrote:

> Any advice on the best lube to use, also what is the best method of
> 'cleaning' the chain. I have been removing it, degreasing and then
> soaking it in a bath of thin oil.

as I've posted before:

locate a back yard.

take bike to back yard.

scrub chain with toothbrush and Simple Green degreaser (or suitable
equivalent).

spray with a garden hose fitted with a good and spurty nozzle to flush
away the ****.

locate sunbeam, and position bike and chain in an appropriate beam for
drying.

lube with your choice of stoff (I like a dry lube with teflon). spin
cranks to let it get to the bone.

dry exterior of chain with old Iron Maiden concert T-shirt to prevent
shmutz from adhering to unneeded lubricant.

Should take ten minutes of your time, not considering the strength of the
solar effect in your particular area.




Chains are relatively cheap, so I don't see the point in going through a
more involved process, unless it's part of your religious practice of
course. lol

If your bike can handle fenders, I've found that even using them in the
dry extends my chain maintenance requirements something like 3X. I broke a
mount thingie for them recently and removed them. The bike looks racier,
but I'm cleaning and lubing the chain more often...

 

[maxo]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 23:31:01 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Wax is good, they say, as long as it
> comes in a tiny expensive bottle. They buy their bottles by the gross,
> since the instructions say to apply the stuff about once per hour.

By the bottle? Bah. I have a small south African marsupial whose ear wax
is the best lubricant. I've constructed a small cage for her on the right
chainstay, and every fifty miles I stop and rub her ears on the drivetrain.

PETA may be ******, but at least my chain's clatter-free.

 

[Hunrobe]

>maxo [email protected]

wrote in part:

>If your bike can handle fenders, I've found that even using them in the
>dry extends my chain maintenance requirements something like 3X. I broke a
>mount thingie for them recently and removed them. The bike looks racier,
>but I'm cleaning and lubing the chain more often...
>

Do you mean a chainguard? I can't imagine any bike *fender* that would have any
appreciable impact on how frequently one would need to do chain maintenance, at
least not on a bike ridden solely on paved surfaces.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[maxo]

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 15:14:18 +0000, Hunrobe wrote:

>>maxo [email protected]
>
> wrote in part:
>
>>If your bike can handle fenders, I've found that even using them in the
>>dry extends my chain maintenance requirements something like 3X. I broke
>>a mount thingie for them recently and removed them. The bike looks
>>racier, but I'm cleaning and lubing the chain more often...
>>
>>
> Do you mean a chainguard? I can't imagine any bike *fender* that would
> have any appreciable impact on how frequently one would need to do chain
> maintenance, at least not on a bike ridden solely on paved surfaces.
>
> Regards,
> Bob Hunt

Seeing is believing--it makes a huge difference even on dry pavement, in
my experience at least. If you'd told me the same thing, and I hadn't
experienced it, I'd be skeptical too!

I do need to find another set of fenders for the sporty ride though--the
bridge mount on the skinny silver zefals was utter ****, so I've been
riding "naked" It's hard to find "sporty" looking full coverage fenders in
white or silver these days. lol.

 

[Dan Daniel]

On 19 Aug 2004 15:14:18 GMT, [email protected] (Hunrobe) wrote:

>>maxo [email protected]
>
>wrote in part:
>
>>If your bike can handle fenders, I've found that even using them in the
>>dry extends my chain maintenance requirements something like 3X. I broke a
>>mount thingie for them recently and removed them. The bike looks racier,
>>but I'm cleaning and lubing the chain more often...
>>
>
>Do you mean a chainguard? I can't imagine any bike *fender* that would have any
>appreciable impact on how frequently one would need to do chain maintenance, at
>least not on a bike ridden solely on paved surfaces.
>
>Regards,
>Bob Hunt
>

I have two similar road bikes using the same chain lube and ridden in
similar places. One has fenders, the other doesn't. The chain on the
bike without fenders gets dirtier than one on the bike with fenders.

Makes sense to me- the front wheel throws up a cloud of dirt and dust
and sends it back to the chain, bottom bracket, chainrings, etc.
Fenders will reduce the amount of dirt and dust that gets thrown back
there, so the chain stays cleaner.

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Hunrobe wrote:

>>maxo [email protected]
>
>
> wrote in part:
>
>
>>If your bike can handle fenders, I've found that even using them in the
>>dry extends my chain maintenance requirements something like 3X. I broke a
>>mount thingie for them recently and removed them. The bike looks racier,
>>but I'm cleaning and lubing the chain more often...
>>
>
>
> Do you mean a chainguard? I can't imagine any bike *fender* that would have any
> appreciable impact on how frequently one would need to do chain maintenance, at
> least not on a bike ridden solely on paved surfaces.

I do think it helps! Grit kicked up by the front wheel flies toward the
chain, unless stopped by a fender.

But I bet a true chain case (or full chainguard) would help much, much
more. I recall reading that European utility motorcycles with chain
cases have almost infinite chain life.


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

 

[Hunrobe]

>maxo [email protected]

wrote in part:

>Seeing is believing--it makes a huge difference even on dry pavement, in
>my experience at least. If you'd told me the same thing, and I hadn't
>experienced it, I'd be skeptical too!

I'm guessing then that you mean full length fenders of the type I associate
with cruiser bikes. If you'd rather have those and clean your chain every 3000
miles as opposed to every 1000 miles then I can understand your search. From my
personal aesthetic and "weight weenie" POV- and this is just a personal
preference, not a putdown- I'd rather clean my chain every 500 miles than use
fenders.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[maxo]

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 20:35:08 +0000, Hunrobe wrote:

> From my personal aesthetic and "weight weenie"
> POV- and this is just a personal preference, not a putdown- I'd rather
> clean my chain every 500 miles than use fenders.

I'm fine without them at the moment, and I'm cleaning my chain every 250
miles, but come fall I must have them or I'll go nuts.

From the aesthetic POV, it sounds like you've never seen a road bike
equipped with a proper set of fenders, which isn't surprising if you're
living in the US. It can be very fetching, especially on bikes in the
French Randonee tradition--I think it makes a bike look "complete".
Unfortunately the move to short reach brakes made fitting them next to
impossible--an idiotic move on part of the industry in my opinion. Makes
sense for full-on dedicated racers I guess, but not for the riders like me
who use fenders and sometimes even a rack on our fast rides.

I love being able to jump on my bike right after a thunderstorm and smell
the ozone, without getting a stripe--that's my aesthetic no-no. LOL.

http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/berthoudinst.asp
http://www.rivendellbicycles.com/images/catpics/27-002.jpg

 

[Frank Krygowski]

maxo wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 20:35:08 +0000, Hunrobe wrote:
>
>
>> From my personal aesthetic and "weight weenie"
>>POV- and this is just a personal preference, not a putdown- I'd rather
>>clean my chain every 500 miles than use fenders.
>
>
> I'm fine without them at the moment, and I'm cleaning my chain every 250
> miles, but come fall I must have them or I'll go nuts.
>
> From the aesthetic POV, it sounds like you've never seen a road bike
> equipped with a proper set of fenders, which isn't surprising if you're
> living in the US. It can be very fetching...

I agree, and I've known other riders to agree as well.

At this point in my life, I've probably seen over 100,000 high quality
"road" (i.e. pretend racer) bikes. Ho hum. But when I see a bike
elegantly equipped for touring, or even for utility work, it's
invariably interesting and often beautiful.

But more important to me, fenders (like lights) go a long way toward
transforming a bike from a toy into a tool. They certainly allow me to
ride when I'd otherwise stay inside - the latest example being last
night. Yeah, it was raining. Yes, it was dark. No, I didn't ride far
- but it sure was pleasant!

And, BTW, if you do it right, you can have your fenders set up so they
can be installed or removed in about five minutes. What's not to love?



> http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/berthoudinst.asp

Very nice!

>


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

 

[maxo]

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:52:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

> At this point in my life, I've probably seen over 100,000 high quality
> "road" (i.e. pretend racer) bikes. Ho hum. But when I see a bike
> elegantly equipped for touring, or even for utility work, it's invariably
> interesting and often beautiful.
>
> But more important to me, fenders (like lights) go a long way toward
> transforming a bike from a toy into a tool.

I agree 100%! I can look at racers in a store for an hour or two and be
fascinated, what's not to like? Technology is engaging, but...

Like you said, it's great to see a bike that has a "purpose". Certainly if
you're a racer, then your bike should reflect that, and be spare and
lightly elegant.

I really like many of the bikes at momovelo.com, yes the text is sometimes
a little over the top--but it makes me grin. Something like: this bike
is for the fast rider who enjoys potholes and carries hot/sour soup on the
front rack, has a Leica in the waxed front case, has no time for gears,
and recites Kafka whilst repairing punctures...



The bike that always got me the most comments in Chicago was a lowly Marin
San Anselmo equipped with a 7spd hub, fenders, Brooks, aluminum fenders,
rack, bell, fast 700c wheels, and north-road nitto bars. All black of
course, the logos either removed or painted over. Basically a modern
version of a Raleigh Sports. Folks would ask me all kinds of questions and
request test rides LOL I think the reason for such a "regular" bike to get
such attention was that it looked like the type of bike that you could
jump on wearing anything and have a spectacular urban adventure--and have
the rack space for the Peking duck you bought in Chinatown. It had no
attitude, just said "get on me and explore"!

Some of my favourite bikes are cargo bikes with the flatbed up front. I'd
love to own one of those, go to an electronics retailer, purchase a
humongous TV and have the guys carry it out to my, um, vehicle.

 

[Frank Krygowski]

maxo wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:52:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>
>>At this point in my life, I've probably seen over 100,000 high quality
>>"road" (i.e. pretend racer) bikes. Ho hum. But when I see a bike
>>elegantly equipped for touring, or even for utility work, it's invariably
>>interesting and often beautiful.
>>
>>But more important to me, fenders (like lights) go a long way toward
>>transforming a bike from a toy into a tool.
>
>
> I agree 100%! I can look at racers in a store for an hour or two and be
> fascinated, what's not to like? Technology is engaging, but...
>
> Like you said, it's great to see a bike that has a "purpose". Certainly if
> you're a racer, then your bike should reflect that, and be spare and
> lightly elegant.
>
> I really like many of the bikes at momovelo.com...

Looks interesting! I don't remember seeing that site before.

Anyone who likes beautiful yet practical bikes - or historic bikes -
should try a subscription to Vintage Bicycle Quarterly. Its focus is
top quality touring bikes (mostly French) from, oh, the 1930s to the
1960s. Very elegant stuff from the times when touring bikes were the
pinnacle of bicycle technology.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

 

[maxo]

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:32:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


> Anyone who likes beautiful yet practical bikes - or historic bikes -
> should try a subscription to Vintage Bicycle Quarterly. Its focus is top
> quality touring bikes (mostly French) from, oh, the 1930s to the 1960s.
> Very elegant stuff from the times when touring bikes were the pinnacle of
> bicycle technology.

I'll check it out! The classic French touring bike, along with the English
three speed, are among the true fundamental design classics amongst bikes,
and strangely enough--the rarest, at least in the United States.

 

[Peter Cole]

"maxo" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> The bike that always got me the most comments in Chicago was a lowly Marin
> San Anselmo equipped with a 7spd hub, fenders, Brooks, aluminum fenders,
> rack, bell, fast 700c wheels, and north-road nitto bars. All black of
> course, the logos either removed or painted over. Basically a modern
> version of a Raleigh Sports. Folks would ask me all kinds of questions and
> request test rides LOL I think the reason for such a "regular" bike to get
> such attention was that it looked like the type of bike that you could
> jump on wearing anything and have a spectacular urban adventure--and have
> the rack space for the Peking duck you bought in Chinatown. It had no
> attitude, just said "get on me and explore"!

I built up a similar bike for my wife to commute with. When she takes it to
club rides she gets mostly negative comments. People are always suggesting how
much faster she could be with a "better" bike. Out of 30 or so riders on
Saturday's rainy club 30 miler, I think ours were the only 2 bikes with
fenders. I stayed with the fast group which averaged a bit over 20 mph, nobody
suggested that I get a "better" bike. Fenders don't slow you down, they just
keep you clean when the weather is sloppy. They add a tiny amount of weight,
but no drag to speak of. Unfortunately, most modern frames seem unable to
accommodate them. I haven't experienced longer chain life, though. If you use
fenders you need to be prepared for the additional hazard of possibly picking
up sticks, which can be serious.

 

[Hunrobe]

>Frank Krygowski [email protected]

wrote in part:

>At this point in my life, I've probably seen over 100,000 high quality
>"road" (i.e. pretend racer) bikes. Ho hum. But when I see a bike
>elegantly equipped for touring, or even for utility work, it's
>invariably interesting and often beautiful.

---snip---

http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/berthoudinst.asp
>
>Very nice!

As I wrote in my reply to Max, to me it boils down to personal preference. For
example, the first thing I'd do if someone gave me the Rivendell bike pictured
is strip off that rack and those fenders and give them to someone that would
appreciate them. I think they clutter the bike's lines. If someone else likes
them, cool. That's why Baskin Robbins has 31 flavors. (Or since you're lactose
intolerant, why they distill bourbon, scotch, AND vodka. <g>)

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[David Reuteler]

Hunrobe <[email protected]> wrote:
> http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/berthoudinst.asp
>>
> As I wrote in my reply to Max, to me it boils down to personal preference. For
> example, the first thing I'd do if someone gave me the Rivendell bike pictured
> is strip off that rack and those fenders and give them to someone that would
> appreciate them. I think they clutter the bike's lines.

why stop there? i'd swap the seat out for a selle italia ti flite, drop the
bars down about 2 inches, trade the bar-ends for brifters and put on some
black velocity deep-v rims.

then it'd be getting presentable.
--
david reuteler
[email protected]

 

[maxo]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 03:46:46 +0000, David Reuteler wrote:

> Hunrobe <[email protected]> wrote:
>> http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/berthoudinst.asp
>>>
>> As I wrote in my reply to Max, to me it boils down to personal
>> preference. For example, the first thing I'd do if someone gave me the
>> Rivendell bike pictured is strip off that rack and those fenders and
>> give them to someone that would appreciate them. I think they clutter
>> the bike's lines.
>
> why stop there? i'd swap the seat out for a selle italia ti flite, drop
> the bars down about 2 inches, trade the bar-ends for brifters and put on
> some black velocity deep-v rims.
>
> then it'd be getting presentable.

LOL

Don't you dare do that to a Riv.

Why does everything "good looking" have to = racer boy look, eh?

I've said many times over that I appreciate a fine modern essential steed.

But fenders and rack interfering with the "lines" of the bike? Please. On
that type of bike they are integral! Perhaps you might go for just front
and rear bags and no rack, but still...

Do you cut off the fenders on your Subaru because it doesn't have the
spare and gorgeous looks of a VW dune buggy?

Selle Italia ti flite on a Rivendell? Why? Because it looks racy? Because
it's certainly not comfy for utility riding, only if you're leaning a good
amount of weight on your hands and lifting yourself up by spinning hard is
such a saddle appropriate. Otherwise gimme a Brooks or something else more
sensible.

Brifters? Uglee! Handy and good certainly, but horrendous looking and
awfully chunky. Barends or downtubes please.

Deep V rims? Perhaps you also have 17" spinners on your 92 civic? A nice
silver boxy classic 32 hole rim would be appropriate. Something like a
Mavic Ma3.

When looks and utility contradict each other, it's just ugly no matter how
you cut it.

None of the 'mods' you mentioned are inherently bad things--I'd use them
all in context depending on the type of ride I was building--racer
components aren't the end-all of sexy.

 

[David Reuteler]

maxo <[email protected]> wrote:
> Don't you dare do that to a Riv.

hmm, maybe i'll pick me up a rivendell frame and throw on some campag shamals
or hed 3s and a full record group. nice threadless fork (maybe an internal
headset?). ;-)

> Selle Italia ti flite on a Rivendell? Why? Because it looks racy? Because
> it's certainly not comfy for utility riding, only if you're leaning a good
> amount of weight on your hands and lifting yourself up by spinning hard is
> such a saddle appropriate. Otherwise gimme a Brooks or something else more
> sensible.

actually, i strongly disagree here. ti flites are damn good seats (like any
other; if they fit you) and i did a 5400 mile tour on one with never a
complaint. by comparison 500 miles with a brooks had me in A-G-O-N-Y. not
because it looks racy: because it's comfy.

> Brifters? Uglee! Handy and good certainly, but horrendous looking and
> awfully chunky. Barends or downtubes please.

campag ergo are not nearly as chunky as shimano. they're downright pretty
the only difference between the non-shifting version being the inner shift
lever.

> Deep V rims? Perhaps you also have 17" spinners on your 92 civic? A nice
> silver boxy classic 32 hole rim would be appropriate. Something like a
> Mavic Ma3.
>
> When looks and utility contradict each other, it's just ugly no matter how
> you cut it.

deep v's are stronger than ma3s and mine have 36 holes. the only down side
is weight (they're heavier than your ma3) and the need for long presta valve
tubes.

> None of the 'mods' you mentioned are inherently bad things--I'd use them
> all in context depending on the type of ride I was building--racer
> components aren't the end-all of sexy.

geez, i was just baiting ya. actually i have all of those mods 'cept for the
deep v's (too narrow) and 23mm tires on my touring bike. right alongside
the fender and a rack, of course.
--
david reuteler
[email protected]

 

[maxo]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 05:55:38 +0000, David Reuteler wrote:

> 23mm tires on my touring bike.

That statement alone is enough to bait me. LOL It completely contradicts
itself.



Unless you weigh less than 130#, touring on anything skinnier than a
700x28 just doesn't make sense. The 23's won't make you go any faster and
you'll get more flats. I'll allow 25's for CC touring of course.