WD-40 on a rusty chain?

[Ablang]

I have a co-worker I'll call "Eric". Yesterday, I got to see his
bikes (he has 4) at his place. He has a mtn bike (main) in the garage
and 3 in the backyard. The last 3 seem to have been there for a while
exposed to the elements. They all have rusty chains and I'm sure flat
tires.

Today we got to talking about them. I told him he'll probably
have to replace the chains (or is it possible to save a rusty
chain?). He says he can WD-40 the heck out of it and it'll be as good
as new. I told him I thought it would probably work, but that WD-40s
a degreaser and it'll have to be cleaned off afterwards and then
lubed. He says he's been riding bikes for years and WD-40s all he
needs (he probably sprays his whole bikes w/ it).

What do you guys think? How can you un-rust a chain? And is
WD-40 not good for a bike in any way?

 

[[email protected]]

Ron Ablang wrote:

> I have a co-worker I'll call "Eric". Yesterday, I got to see his
> bikes (he has 4) at his place. He has a MTB bike (main) in the
> garage and 3 in the backyard. The last 3 seem to have been there
> for a while exposed to the elements. They all have rusty chains and
> I'm sure flat tires.

> Today we got to talking about them. I told him he'll probably have
> to replace the chains (or is it possible to save a rusty chain?).
> He says he can WD-40 the heck out of it and it'll be as good as new.
> I told him I thought it would probably work, but that WD-40s a
> degreaser and it'll have to be cleaned off afterward and then lubed.
> He says he's been riding bikes for years and WD-40s all he needs (he
> probably sprays his whole bikes w/ it).

> What do you guys think? How can you un-rust a chain? And is WD-40
> not good for a bike in any way?

Rust on the outside of a chain (the only rust that is visible) has no
effect on its function. Unless the chain was washed clean of
lubricant, the link pins and their running surface are not rusty, so
you can ad a bit of motor oil while pedaling backward and be done with
it.

As you see, WD-40 is not a rust inhibitor nor a good lubricant for a
chain that is exposed to water because it washes away too easily,
being a microscopically thin layer. Forget about external rust.

Jobst Brandt

 

[David L. Johnson]

Ablang wrote:

> What do you guys think? How can you un-rust a chain? And is
> WD-40 not good for a bike in any way?

Get real. A chain costs $10 or less, depending on type. Replace it.
WD-40 is great on bikes, as a cleaner. It is not chain lube, but leaves
enough residue behind for people to think that is doing something.

--

David L. Johnson

Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on
no account be allowed to do the job.
-- Douglas Adams

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Ablang" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:9e25b35f-7fe0-4e8e-b2cb-390ac64ce37d@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> What do you guys think? How can you un-rust a chain? And is
> WD-40 not good for a bike in any way?

If you don't ride a bike much the chain wears so slowly that WD-40 doesn't
seem a bad choice.

 

[SMS]

Ablang wrote:

> What do you guys think? How can you un-rust a chain? And is
> WD-40 not good for a bike in any way?

Yes, it'll help remove the surface rust. However he should use some 30
weight motor oil to lubricate it. Take the chain off, and soak it in a
pie tin of 30W motor oil (NOT 10W30 or 5W30, but just SAE 30). If he
doesn't want to remove the chain, get a chain cleaning tool and after
cleaning the chain with solvent, clean the tool and fill it with SAE 30 oil.

Harbor Freight stores (not mail order) has these tools pretty cheap,
"http://www.harborfreightusa.com/usa/itemdisplay/displayItem.do?itemid=95864"

Nashbar has one for $10,
"http://www.nashbar.com/profile.cfm?category=600099&subcategory=60001234&brand=&sku=20350"

Convincing people that WD-40 is a poor lubricant is often hopeless.

 

[[email protected]]

Steven Scharf wrote:

>> What do you guys think? How can you un-rust a chain? And is WD-40
>> not good for a bike in any way?

> Yes, it'll help remove the surface rust. However he should use some
> 30 weight motor oil to lubricate it.

How and by what chemistry does WD-40 remove rust?

> Take the chain off, and soak it in a pie tin of 30W motor oil (NOT
> 10W30 or 5W30, but just SAE 30).

What is soaking when a chain is submerged in oil? The way you say
that one might visualize a non-metal getting limp with oil. Steel
does not absorb oil.

> If he doesn't want to remove the chain, get a chain cleaning tool
> and after cleaning the chain with solvent, clean the tool and fill
> it with SAE 30 oil.

The main purpose of chain cleaning is not appearances, but rather to
remove fine grit from pins, sleeves, and rollers, parts that rotate.
Chain cleaning tools with rotating brushes are ineffective in doing
that. Soaking in solvent allows the grit suspended in oil to separate
and fall out when the chain is agitated with its pins vertical.

> Harbor Freight stores (not mail order) has these tools pretty cheap,

http://tinyurl.com/644bdm

> Nashbar has one for $10:

http://tinyurl.com/5zke3w

These devices make a mess with dirty solvent sprayed from their chain
exit port.

> Convincing people that WD-40 is a poor lubricant is often hopeless.

Old wives tales have religious attraction for many folks.

Jobst Brandt

 

[Twitchell]

In article <9e25b35f-7fe0-4e8e-b2cb-390ac64ce37d@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Ablang says...
>
> I have a co-worker I'll call "Eric". Yesterday, I got to see his
>bikes (he has 4) at his place. He has a mtn bike (main) in the garage
>and 3 in the backyard. The last 3 seem to have been there for a while
>exposed to the elements. They all have rusty chains and I'm sure flat
>tires.
>
> Today we got to talking about them. I told him he'll probably
>have to replace the chains (or is it possible to save a rusty
>chain?). He says he can WD-40 the heck out of it and it'll be as good
>as new. I told him I thought it would probably work, but that WD-40s
>a degreaser and it'll have to be cleaned off afterwards and then
>lubed. He says he's been riding bikes for years and WD-40s all he
>needs (he probably sprays his whole bikes w/ it).
>
> What do you guys think? How can you un-rust a chain? And is
>WD-40 not good for a bike in any way?

Going here and searching "bicycle":

http://www.wd40.com/uses-tips/

I find these bicycle tips:

23 uses found.

Degreases bicycle chains

Degreases bicycle frame

Lubricates bicycle shocks

Lubricates bicycle U-locks

Protects bicycle chain

Cleans chrome bicycle frame

Drives moisture from bicycle bearings

Keeps stationary bicycle pedals from squeaking

Loosens screws on old bicycle bells

Loosens swivel on bicycle handlebars

Prevents rust on bicycle frame

Prevents rust on bicycle spokes

Removes adhesive from bicycle frames

Drives moisture from wet bicycle chains

Eases removal of bicycle training wheels

Lubricates bicycle brake pad hinges

Prevents rust on bicycle brake cables

Prevents rust on bicycle brake threads

Removes unwanted decals from bicycle frames

Stops squeaks on bicycle seat coils

Stops squeaks on bicycle seat posts

Cleans and protects adjusting screws on bicycle seats

Drives moisture from bicycle gear shifting cab

twitchell

 

[David L. Johnson]

[email protected] wrote:

> What is soaking when a chain is submerged in oil? The way you say
> that one might visualize a non-metal getting limp with oil. Steel
> does not absorb oil.
....
> Chain cleaning tools with rotating brushes are ineffective in doing
> that. Soaking in solvent allows the grit suspended in oil to separate
> and fall out when the chain is agitated with its pins vertical.

So, does steel absorb solvent, but not oil?

--

David L. Johnson

It doesn't get any easier, you just go faster.
--Greg LeMond

 

[[email protected]]

David L. Johnson wrote:

>> What is soaking when a chain is submerged in oil? The way you say
>> that one might visualize a non-metal getting limp with oil. Steel
>> does not absorb oil.

> ...

>> Chain cleaning tools with rotating brushes are ineffective in doing
>> that. Soaking in solvent allows the grit suspended in oil to
>> separate and fall out when the chain is agitated with its pins
>> vertical.

> So, does steel absorb solvent, but not oil?

Where did you get that notion. Steel is not porous and at
temperatures below its melting point, does not absorb other
materials.

Jobst Brandt

 

[David L. Johnson]

[email protected] wrote:
> David L. Johnson wrote:
>
>>> What is soaking when a chain is submerged in oil? The way you say
>>> that one might visualize a non-metal getting limp with oil. Steel
>>> does not absorb oil.
>
>> ...
>
>>> Chain cleaning tools with rotating brushes are ineffective in doing
>>> that. Soaking in solvent allows the grit suspended in oil to
>>> separate and fall out when the chain is agitated with its pins
>>> vertical.
>
>> So, does steel absorb solvent, but not oil?
>
> Where did you get that notion. Steel is not porous and at
> temperatures below its melting point, does not absorb other
> materials.

But you castigated the previous poster for saying that he was going to
soak the chain in oil, as if the chain would absorb the oil, and in the
next paragraph you talk about soaking the chain in solvent....

Just trying to keep you honest, Jobst.

--

David L. Johnson

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
-- Albert Einstein

 

[[email protected]]

David L. Johnson wrote:

>>>> What is soaking when a chain is submerged in oil? The way you say
>>>> that one might visualize a non-metal getting limp with oil. Steel
>>>> does not absorb oil.

>>> ...

>>>> Chain cleaning tools with rotating brushes are ineffective in doing
>>>> that. Soaking in solvent allows the grit suspended in oil to
>>>> separate and fall out when the chain is agitated with its pins
>>>> vertical.

>>> So, does steel absorb solvent, but not oil?

>> Where did you get that notion. Steel is not porous and at
>> temperatures below its melting point, does not absorb other
>> materials.

> But you castigated the previous poster for saying that he was going to
> soak the chain in oil, as if the chain would absorb the oil, and in the
> next paragraph you talk about soaking the chain in solvent....

> Just trying to keep you honest, Jobst.

As I said, read first write second. Had you read the item to which
you refer, you would have seen that it said:

# Soaking in solvent allows the grit suspended in oil to separate
# and fall out when the chain is agitated with its pins vertical.

Therefore, the soaking affect the grime in the chain. Oil won't do
that any good because it is made of oil and grit together with fine
particles of steel sludge worn from the chain. Solvent will dissolve
the binder for this mixture and allow gravity removed it in the manner
described.

Keep your own writing honest!

Jobst Brandt

 

[jim beam]

[email protected] wrote:
> David L. Johnson wrote:
>
>>>>> What is soaking when a chain is submerged in oil? The way you say
>>>>> that one might visualize a non-metal getting limp with oil. Steel
>>>>> does not absorb oil.
>
>>>> ...
>
>>>>> Chain cleaning tools with rotating brushes are ineffective in doing
>>>>> that. Soaking in solvent allows the grit suspended in oil to
>>>>> separate and fall out when the chain is agitated with its pins
>>>>> vertical.
>
>>>> So, does steel absorb solvent, but not oil?
>
>>> Where did you get that notion. Steel is not porous and at
>>> temperatures below its melting point, does not absorb other
>>> materials.
>
>> But you castigated the previous poster for saying that he was going to
>> soak the chain in oil, as if the chain would absorb the oil, and in the
>> next paragraph you talk about soaking the chain in solvent....
>
>> Just trying to keep you honest, Jobst.
>
> As I said, read first write second.

eh? "as you said"??? where did you say that?


> Had you read the item to which
> you refer, you would have seen that it said:
>
> # Soaking in solvent allows the grit suspended in oil to separate
> # and fall out when the chain is agitated with its pins vertical.
>
> Therefore, the soaking affect the grime in the chain. Oil won't do
> that any good because it is made of oil and grit together with fine
> particles of steel sludge worn from the chain. Solvent will dissolve
> the binder for this mixture and allow gravity removed it in the manner
> described.

eh? so, if i pour sand onto the surface of a beaker of oil, it'll
remain in suspension???


>
> Keep your own writing honest!
>

jobst, you're such a bullshitting hypocrite. all "solvent" does is
allow grit migration to happen more quickly. viscosity is not
solubility. oil doesn't "bind" unless there's not much of it and
surface tension holds a previously submerged particle. and that's not a
solubility thing either.

oh, and heaven forbid we dig up the festering corpse of solvent use
washing grit /onto/ bearing surfaces where they previously weren't.

 

[jim beam]

[email protected] wrote:
> David L. Johnson wrote:
>
>>> What is soaking when a chain is submerged in oil? The way you say
>>> that one might visualize a non-metal getting limp with oil. Steel
>>> does not absorb oil.
>
>> ...
>
>>> Chain cleaning tools with rotating brushes are ineffective in doing
>>> that. Soaking in solvent allows the grit suspended in oil to
>>> separate and fall out when the chain is agitated with its pins
>>> vertical.
>
>> So, does steel absorb solvent, but not oil?
>
> Where did you get that notion. Steel is not porous and at
> temperatures below its melting point, does not absorb other
> materials.

neither of those statements are very correct jobst. but it's not like
you understand enough to have been clear in your original statement.

1. steel can most definitely be porous. and as far as the subject of
chains are concerned, surface roughness can retain significant foreign
material, or in this case, oil.

2. steel can most definitely absorb different materials in solidus.
solubility of hydrogen in steel, even at room temperature, is
phenomenal. but again, you're simply seeking to wriggle out from under
your own mis-statement, not be factually correct.

 

[Zog The Undeniable]

Ablang wrote:
> I have a co-worker I'll call "Eric". Yesterday, I got to see his
> bikes (he has 4) at his place. He has a mtn bike (main) in the garage
> and 3 in the backyard. The last 3 seem to have been there for a while
> exposed to the elements. They all have rusty chains and I'm sure flat
> tires.
>
> Today we got to talking about them. I told him he'll probably
> have to replace the chains (or is it possible to save a rusty
> chain?). He says he can WD-40 the heck out of it and it'll be as good
> as new. I told him I thought it would probably work, but that WD-40s
> a degreaser and it'll have to be cleaned off afterwards and then
> lubed. He says he's been riding bikes for years and WD-40s all he
> needs (he probably sprays his whole bikes w/ it).
>
> What do you guys think? How can you un-rust a chain? And is
> WD-40 not good for a bike in any way?

I've known people only use WD40/GT85 on their chains, and they lasted as
long as anyone else's. It's not the optimum chain lube, but it's better
than nothing, and chains aren't very demanding.

 

[Pat]

>
> These devices make a mess with dirty solvent sprayed from their chain
> exit port.
>
>> Convincing people that WD-40 is a poor lubricant is often hopeless.
>
> Old wives tales have religious attraction for many folks.
>
> Jobst Brandt

Hey, I doubt this has anything to do with "old wives". How many people
discussing this topic have been "old wives" anyway? It reminds me of
listening to "Click and Clack" one day and they were discussing a
carbureator and one of them said, "Oh, that's an old wives' tale." As if old
women spent their time discussing carbureator rebuilding? How about calling
it a folk tale or urban legend....

Pat in TX

 

[Pat]

>
> 1. steel can most definitely be porous. and as far as the subject of
> chains are concerned, surface roughness can retain significant foreign
> material, or in this case, oil.
>
> 2. steel can most definitely absorb different materials in solidus.
> solubility of hydrogen in steel, even at room temperature, is phenomenal.
> but again, you're simply seeking to wriggle out from under your own
> mis-statement, not be factually correct.

Please explain how "steel can most definitely be porous" and "steel can most
definitely absorb different materials in solidus (sic)". And this time, use
references instead of your tone of righteous indignation simply because you
don't like Jobst. I find it hard to believe that even if steel can absorb
hydrogen, that it would be at all applicable to this discussion.

Pat in TX
>

 

[jim beam]

Pat wrote:
>> 1. steel can most definitely be porous. and as far as the subject of
>> chains are concerned, surface roughness can retain significant foreign
>> material, or in this case, oil.
>>
>> 2. steel can most definitely absorb different materials in solidus.
>> solubility of hydrogen in steel, even at room temperature, is phenomenal.
>> but again, you're simply seeking to wriggle out from under your own
>> mis-statement, not be factually correct.
>
> Please explain how "steel can most definitely be porous"

steel can be porous - that means holes in it. sintered applications are
the classic, but cheapo castings are another.


> and "steel can most
> definitely absorb different materials in solidus (sic)".

as far as the definitive statement is concerned, solid solutions are
very common. not really any different to liquid solutions except that
mixing takes a lot longer. carburized or nitrided components depend on
this phenomenon.

as far as the jobstian fudging is concerned however, he's alluding to
surface adsorption. adsorption is a different matter entirely, and
means a molecular layer sticks to a substrate, regardless of whether
it's source has been removed or not.



> And this time, use
> references

i could, but i really can't be bothered. use google for adsorption,
porosity and sintering, and solid solutions. these are all very common
scientific terms.



> instead of your tone of righteous indignation simply because you
> don't like Jobst.

it's not whether i like him, it's the fact that he's a bullshitter.

example: "Solvent will dissolve the binder for this mixture and allow
gravity removed it in the manner described."

oil has no "binder". it has viscosity, but that's not the same thing.
it has surface tension, but that's not the same thing. what he means is
that bulk application of a liquid can free the surface tension holding a
grit particle in place, and that the lower viscosity can speed its
migration. but scientifically, bulk oil can do exactly the same thing,
only a little slower. **** about "grit suspended in oil" is utter
fabrication because oil can't/won't do that unless you're discussing
very short time frames.



> I find it hard to believe that even if steel can absorb
> hydrogen, that it would be at all applicable to this discussion.

its possible relevance to chain lubrication is the use of cleaning
agents. if the agent evolves hydrogen, through some misapplication, it
can be a factor in the longevity of a chain. i'm not saying it does
happen, but since jobst insists in writing in definitive terms, example:
"Solvent /will/ dissolve the binder" [my emphasis], his definition is
incorrect.

for the record, hydrogen /probably/ is not a factor, but it's wrong to
make a definitive like: "Steel is not porous and at temperatures below
its melting point, does not absorb other materials" for exactly the
reasons i stated.

 

[jim beam]

Pat wrote:
>> 1. steel can most definitely be porous. and as far as the subject of
>> chains are concerned, surface roughness can retain significant foreign
>> material, or in this case, oil.
>>
>> 2. steel can most definitely absorb different materials in solidus.
>> solubility of hydrogen in steel, even at room temperature, is phenomenal.
>> but again, you're simply seeking to wriggle out from under your own
>> mis-statement, not be factually correct.
>
> Please explain how "steel can most definitely be porous"

steel can be porous - that means holes in it. sintered applications are
the classic, but cheapo castings are another.


> and "steel can most
> definitely absorb different materials in solidus (sic)".

as far as the definitive statement is concerned, solid solutions are
very common. not really any different to liquid solutions except that
mixing takes a lot longer. carburized or nitrided components depend on
this phenomenon.

as far as the jobstian fudging is concerned however, he's alluding to
surface adsorption. adsorption is a different matter entirely, and
means a molecular layer sticks to a substrate, regardless of whether
it's source has been removed or not.



> And this time, use
> references

i could, but i really can't be bothered. use google for adsorption,
porosity and sintering, and solid solutions. these are all very common
scientific terms.



> instead of your tone of righteous indignation simply because you
> don't like Jobst.

it's not whether i like him, it's the fact that he's a bullshitter.

example: "Solvent will dissolve the binder for this mixture and allow
gravity removed it in the manner described."

oil has no "binder". it has viscosity, but that's not the same thing.
it has surface tension, but that's not the same thing. what he means is
that bulk application of a liquid can free the surface tension holding a
grit particle in place, and that the lower viscosity can speed its
migration. but scientifically, bulk oil can do exactly the same thing,
only a little slower. **** about "grit suspended in oil" is utter
fabrication because oil can't/won't do that unless you're discussing
very short time frames.



> I find it hard to believe that even if steel can absorb
> hydrogen, that it would be at all applicable to this discussion.

its possible relevance to chain lubrication is the use of cleaning
agents. if the agent evolves hydrogen, through some misapplication, it
can be a factor in the longevity of a chain. i'm not saying it does
happen, but since jobst insists in writing in definitive terms, example:
"Solvent /will/ dissolve the binder" [my emphasis], his definition is
incorrect.

for the record, hydrogen /probably/ is not a factor, but it's wrong to
make a definitive like: "Steel is not porous and at temperatures below
its melting point, does not absorb other materials" for exactly the
reasons i stated.

 

[jim beam]

Pat wrote:
>> These devices make a mess with dirty solvent sprayed from their chain
>> exit port.
>>
>>> Convincing people that WD-40 is a poor lubricant is often hopeless.
>> Old wives tales have religious attraction for many folks.
>>
>> Jobst Brandt
>
> Hey, I doubt this has anything to do with "old wives". How many people
> discussing this topic have been "old wives" anyway? It reminds me of
> listening to "Click and Clack" one day and they were discussing a
> carbureator and one of them said, "Oh, that's an old wives' tale." As if old
> women spent their time discussing carbureator rebuilding? How about calling
> it a folk tale or urban legend....
>

you're missing the point of a linguistic metaphor.

 

[jim beam]

Pat wrote:
>> These devices make a mess with dirty solvent sprayed from their chain
>> exit port.
>>
>>> Convincing people that WD-40 is a poor lubricant is often hopeless.
>> Old wives tales have religious attraction for many folks.
>>
>> Jobst Brandt
>
> Hey, I doubt this has anything to do with "old wives". How many people
> discussing this topic have been "old wives" anyway? It reminds me of
> listening to "Click and Clack" one day and they were discussing a
> carbureator and one of them said, "Oh, that's an old wives' tale." As if old
> women spent their time discussing carbureator rebuilding? How about calling
> it a folk tale or urban legend....
>

you're missing the point of a linguistic metaphor.