Syn motor oil/mineral spirits as chain lube...?

I have heard pro and con. Anyone with positive long term experience.Not looking for opinion or
theory....thanks,Jim

 

Positive long-term experience: I own/drive and maintain two turbo diesel powered autos that require
synthetic crankcase oil. They do so because the turbo/journal bearings operate at high temperatures
and speeds.

A bicycle chain does neither.

I have used my drained crankcase oil to lube my chain with no deleterious effects that I can
detect. I clean my chain in the dishwasher. I expect more than 5,000 miles from each of my ten foot
long chains.

"J. Price" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I have heard pro and con. Anyone with positive long term experience.Not looking for opinion or
> theory....thanks,Jim

 

J. Price wrote:
> I have heard pro and con. Anyone with positive long term experience.Not looking for opinion or
> theory....thanks,Jim

Negative experience. I rode through 4 or 5 chains using synthetic oil and cleaned the chain and
gears every 150 miles or so. It was messy and tended to travel (get on other stuff). It also
attracted dust and would load-up and require a mid-ride relube if I did any distance on dusty roads
or trails.

When I switched to a dry(er) lube (Finish Line Teflon -- red cap), my chain life almost doubled. I
was lucky to get 1.5k miles before getting
1/16 - 1/8" chain wear. After the switch, I get more like 2.5-3k. I clean it less often, and have
never needed to relube it mid-ride.

YMMV.

David

 

Do you find that a ten-foot-long chain wears at half the rate of a five-foot-long chain? Seems like
the wear is spread over twice the number of links. That is, I might expect that almost all of the
wear takes place where the links of the chain rotate relative to one another, with little wear in
the straight sections or where the chain is held in place on the chainwheel, etc.

Doug Huffman wrote: ...> I expect
> more than 5,000 miles from each of my ten foot long chains.

 

ANOTHER reason to ride recumbently!! But yes, chain wear occurs only when there is stress AND
relative motion in the wearing parts. As to the rate - "...half the rate of a ..." - I cannot say
but it seems logical.

"don holly" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Do you find that a ten-foot-long chain wears at half the rate of a five-foot-long chain? Seems
> like the wear is spread over twice the number of links. That is, I might expect that almost all of
> the wear takes place where the links of the chain rotate relative to one another, with little wear
> in the straight sections or where the chain is held in place on the chainwheel, etc.
>
> Doug Huffman wrote: ...> I expect
> > more than 5,000 miles from each of my ten foot long chains.
>

 

On 18 Apr 2003 09:35:57 -0700, [email protected] (J. Price) wrote:

>Anyone with positive long term experience.

Not me. By the amount that comes off on clothing, there can't be much left. Even if it made a chain
last forever, it's worth replacing them just to stay clean.

Finish Line XC for me.

 

Doug Huffman wrote:

> "don holly" <[email protected]> wrote...
>> Do you find that a ten-foot-long chain wears at half the rate of a five-foot-long chain? Seems
>> like the wear is spread over twice the number of links [...]
>
> ANOTHER reason to ride recumbently!! But yes, chain wear occurs only when there is stress AND
> relative motion in the wearing parts.

Doesn't seem like much of an advantage when a ten foot chain costs twice as much, though.

--
Benjamin Lewis

"Yak - dog food! Welcome to experience level 3."

 

In article <[email protected]>,
Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:

> Doug Huffman wrote:
>
> > "don holly" <[email protected]> wrote...
> >> Do you find that a ten-foot-long chain wears at half the rate of a five-foot-long chain? Seems
> >> like the wear is spread over twice the number of links [...]
> >
> > ANOTHER reason to ride recumbently!! But yes, chain wear occurs only when there is stress AND
> > relative motion in the wearing parts.
>
> Doesn't seem like much of an advantage when a ten foot chain costs twice as much, though.

But you only have to replace it half as often. Isn't your time worth anything?

Actually, Benjamin has already confessed that he changes chains every time he cleans them, so we
already know _that_ answer.

I'm lazy, so I have 30' of chain running on my bike, I just use a couple extra idler gears,

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

 

Ryan Cousineau wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Doug Huffman wrote:
>>
>>> "don holly" <[email protected]> wrote...
>>>> Do you find that a ten-foot-long chain wears at half the rate of a five-foot-long chain? Seems
>>>> like the wear is spread over twice the number of links [...]
>>>
>>> ANOTHER reason to ride recumbently!! But yes, chain wear occurs only when there is stress AND
>>> relative motion in the wearing parts.
>>
>> Doesn't seem like much of an advantage when a ten foot chain costs twice as much, though.
>
> But you only have to replace it half as often. Isn't your time worth anything?
>
> Actually, Benjamin has already confessed that he changes chains every time he cleans them, so we
> already know _that_ answer.

This takes *less* time than cleaning them on the bike, and allows the rest of the drivetrain to be
cleaned more easily. It's also somewhat effective.

Furthermore, a longer chain would probably need to be cleaned just as often, so I don't see any
significant time benefits.

--
Benjamin Lewis

A small, but vocal, contingent even argues that tin is superior, but they are held by most to be the
lunatic fringe of Foil Deflector Beanie science.