# The Once and For All, End All Be All, Chain Lube Thread



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

We haven't had a good chain lube slug fest in awhile. Let's argue about all our favorite chain lubes here. Which ones are the most awesome and which ones suck?

I've been using my own home brew inspired by Wheelist Mike T. made from 50% synthetic oil and 50% mineral spirits for over 8,000 miles now.

Fire away!


----------



## MDM (Jun 10, 2020)

Unfortunately, there is no best, ideal lube. Wax lubes keep the chain clean, but have a short life. Oily lubes last longest and keep the chain quiet, but the chain gets dirty. I thought Smoove was a good compromise, as it lasted pretty long, but when I put my chain in an ultrasonic cleaner, a lot of black stuff came out and it looked dirty before I cleaned it.


----------



## jetdog9 (Jul 12, 2007)

All this repeated talk about chain lube. Just use a combo of WD40 and Tri-Flow.


----------



## ogre (Dec 16, 2005)

This is the kind of thread that SPIKE craves. Haven’t heard from him in a while, almost starting to worry.


----------



## Rashadabd (Sep 17, 2011)

I am such a novice and a knucklehead when it comes to stuff like this. I often wait too long between cleanings and always use the same thing when I do put a fresh lube on. It's Finish Line Long Lasting Dry Bike Lube. Seems to work, but the chain does get dirty eventually.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

wash chain in Woolite, tumble dry on 'delicate'...

prepare home-made lube by mixing (by volume) 50% extra virgin olive oil / 50% melted unsalted butter.

baste chain liberally with lube, dust lightly with paprika, let sit overnite.

wipe down with microfiber towel, install chain, and you're now ready for 10-12 miles of trouble-free riding.


----------



## Srode (Aug 19, 2012)

I've used a bunch of different lubes, settled on Chain-L. Last a ridiculously long time between lubes, quiet, doesn't get too dirty, and shows up well in the lube comparisons and I get around 8000 miles out of a chain typically (except my gravel bike which get's chainged annually).


----------



## .je (Aug 25, 2012)

Could you get some sort of "Real McCoy" device that would take care of all of this for you?


----------



## tomato coupe (Nov 8, 2009)

MDM said:


> Unfortunately, there is no best, ideal lube.


Blasphemy.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

I'm about as easy going when it comes to lube as you can get. As long as it's not wax or White Lightning I really don't care. At the shop we use Tri Flow mostly, or WD40 Dry. Bontrager lube works well. I like SCC Slick, a buddy reps it. Chain L is great, and I like the smell of gear oil. Dumonde is great. As long as I can clean it off when I wash my bike (which means it easily breaks down w/ either Pedro's degreaser or MuckOff) I don't care. It doesn't matter if it lasts 150mi or 1500. It's just chain lube. 


As long as it's not wax.


----------



## jetdog9 (Jul 12, 2007)

Huh. You know, my post about Tri-Flow and WD40 was meant to be a bad joke.

In reality I have used Finish Line Dry for years but don't really love it. But I don't think I'm very good at applying it.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

cxwrench said:


> As long as it's not wax or White Lightning I really don't care.
> 
> As long as it's not wax.


BINGO!

I am so over dry wax lubes. They claim to lubricate while at the same time magically "flake away" dirt. In reality, they gum up and are just as much dirt magnets as wet oil based lubes. Not to mention they simply don't lube as well. And have you ever tried to apply wax lube in temps below 40F? Good luck with that! Newsflash: Unless you ride in a sterile velodrome, your lube will attract dirt, period. Wiping your chain well after lubing helps, but you need to wipe well again after the first couple of rides after lubing as the lube works itself out of the rollers.

There are many good wet oil based lubes on the market, and some even claim to have Teflon or other "space age" chemicals in them that will take your chain to a new dimension. I have found a 50/50 solution of synthetic motor oil and mineral spirits works just as well and is a whole heck of a lot cheaper.

The important thing is to lube correctly. One drop on each roller. Then wipe chain thoroughly. Wipe again after the first couple of rides. Repeat every 500 miles unless you get caught in rain or very wet roads where you should wipe down and lube immediately after the ride.

I should note that my last chain had no measurable wear after 6000 miles.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

Lombard said:


> We haven't had a good chain lube slug fest in awhile. Let's argue about all our favorite chain lubes here. Which ones are the most awesome and which ones suck?
> 
> I've been using my own home brew inspired by Wheelist Mike T. made from 50% synthetic oil and 50% mineral spirits for over 8,000 miles now.
> 
> Fire away!


After years of trying different lubes I have come to the conclusion that for the recreational rider it doesn't matter all that much. The only lube I would recommend against is White Lightning or similar wax based lubes. The last bunch of years I have been using homebrew with 1/3 oil, 2/3 ODS.


----------



## azpeterb (Jun 1, 2006)

I've been using Dumonde Tech Lite lube for years and it works well. The best thing about it is the smell. It's heavenly. Some call it huffing but I prefer to think of it as fragrance appreciation.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

DaveG said:


> After years of trying different lubes I have come to the conclusion that for the recreational rider it doesn't matter all that much. The only lube I would recommend against is White Lightning or similar wax based lubes. The last bunch of years I have been using homebrew with *1/3 oil, 2/3 ODS*.


What is ODS?


----------



## xxl (Mar 19, 2002)

Lombard said:


> What is ODS?


"Organic Distillate Spirits?" I've only seen "VOC/VOS" (volatile organic compounds/spirits) on my containers of them, but who knows, perhaps there are more acronyms in the world than the ones I'm exposed to: https://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/ODS

Basically, volatile spirits (mineral or otherwise) that are there to thin out the oil and carry it into the deepest recesses of the chain, where the oil can stay as the spirits evaporate.


----------



## xxl (Mar 19, 2002)

azpeterb said:


> I've been using Dumonde Tech Lite lube for years and it works well. The best thing about it is the smell. It's heavenly. Some call it huffing but I prefer to think of it as fragrance appreciation.


Not to judge your preferences, but the Dumonde people refer to their products (or maybe it's just their newest iteration) as "tamely scented."

NTTAWWT, it's just that your tasting notes suggested a more celestial aroma than "tame."


"PRO X Lite brings the aspect of polymerization and MRCC oils that by design migrate for complete wetting of the surfaces


Benefits:


MRCC technology creates an extremely low friction bond.
A dry lubricant that does not attract dust and dirt.
Watts. Very little is used to move your bike parts.
10 time high lubricity the Teflon. Ceramic lubes? Catchy hype.
Waterproof which will not wash off.
Drive train stays clean, last longer, runs silent.
Extremely durable, outlasts all other chain lubes in any condition.
*Tamely scented.*
Applied sparingly for the best results and increased value.
Can be shipped around the world via air freight and ground."


https://www.dumondetech.com/portfolio/pro-x-lite/


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

Lombard said:


> What is ODS?


Its bad typing on my part. I meant Odorless Mineral Spirits (aka paint thinner). Initially I used synthetic oil as was the approved internet recipe. Since then, I have the opinion that regular oil made from dinosaurs works just the same


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

xxl said:


> Not to judge your preferences, but the Dumonde people refer to their products (or maybe it's just their newest iteration) as "tamely scented."
> 
> NTTAWWT, it's just that your tasting notes suggested a more celestial aroma than "tame."
> 
> ...


I am thinking of becoming a chain lube sommelier.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

DaveG said:


> Its bad typing on my part. I meant Odorless Mineral Spirits (aka paint thinner).


The two are not synonymous. 
OMS can be used as a paint thinner. But a paint thinner isn't necessarily OMS. 
Make sure to read the label. Something labeled 'Paint Thinner' could contain Acetone, Turpentine, Naphtha, Toluene, Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), Dimethylformamide (DMF). Some nasty stuff.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

tlg said:


> The two are not synonymous.
> OMS can be used as a paint thinner. But a paint thinner isn't necessarily OMS.
> Make sure to read the label. Something labeled 'Paint Thinner' could contain Acetone, Turpentine, Naphtha, Toluene, Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), Dimethylformamide (DMF). Some nasty stuff.


And just because something is odorless doesn't mean it isn't harmful to breathe in. Carbon monoxide and methane gas are odorless.


----------



## MDM (Jun 10, 2020)

What chain lubes last 600 miles without re-appling and are fairly clean and easy to clean/degrease the chain? 

I assume any wax lubes with the exception of Smoove are out and Chain-L is too dirty.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

Lombard said:


> The important thing is to lube correctly. One drop on each roller. Then wipe chain thoroughly. Wipe again after the first couple of rides. Repeat every 500 miles unless you get caught in rain or very wet roads where you should wipe down and lube immediately after the ride.


If you use a more dilute lube formula (3 parts odorless mineral spirits to one part oil) and flood the chain with it while pedaling the bike in the work stand, you will simultaneously clean the chain by fluidizing all the gunk and grit. Wiping the chain well and letting the solvent evaporate (lube after the ride, not before it) leaves lube inside the chain and a clean outside.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Kerry Irons said:


> If you use a more dilute lube formula (3 parts odorless mineral spirits to one part oil) and flood the chain with it while pedaling the bike in the work stand, you will simultaneously clean the chain by fluidizing all the gunk and grit. Wiping the chain well and letting the solvent evaporate (lube after the ride, not before it) leaves lube inside the chain and a clean outside.


This is currently what I do with the 50/50 formula and it actually does a pretty good job at cleaning the chain. Though I think I'll try your formula or maybe a 2/1 formula next.


----------



## MDM (Jun 10, 2020)

There are studies that show homemade penetrating oil as good as the commercial equivalent can be made by diluting the lubricating oil with 10% acetone. I'm not sure how much OMS differs in this application, but diluting motor oil with 50% OMS seems you are diluting it too much. Beware that acetone dissolves some plastics so make sure the the bottle you use can handle it (HDPE 2 works). Acetone also evaporates quickly whereas OMS doesn't.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

MDM said:


> There are studies that show homemade penetrating oil as good as the commercial equivalent can be made by diluting the lubricating oil with 10% acetone. I'm not sure how much OMS differs in this application, but diluting motor oil with 50% OMS seems you are diluting it too much. Beware that acetone dissolves some plastics so make sure the the bottle you use can handle it (HDPE 2 works). Acetone also evaporates quickly whereas OMS doesn't.


The formula has been much debated over the internet. I remember intense debates on this back in the USENET days. The theory is that with more dilution, it makes a better chain cleaner and leaving less oil on the surface on the chain allows it to run cleaner. I've tried as much as 4 parts OMS one part oil and it hasn't seemed to make much difference in the intervals between cleaning and re-lubing.


----------



## MDM (Jun 10, 2020)

DaveG said:


> The formula has been much debated over the internet. I remember intense debates on this back in the USENET days. The theory is that with more dilution, it makes a better chain cleaner and leaving less oil on the surface on the chain allows it to run cleaner. I've tried as much as 4 parts OMS one part oil and it hasn't seemed to make much difference in the intervals between cleaning and re-lubing.


I'm a believer in taking off the chain and clean it that way, either in a water bottle with a mix of boiling hot water and Simple Green or an ultrasonic cleaner.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

MDM said:


> I'm a believer in taking off the chain and clean it that way, either in a water bottle with a mix of boiling hot water and Simple Green or an ultrasonic cleaner.


Unnecessary, not to mention stripping the old lube out of the rollers and introducing water won't allow the water to dry out of the rollers before some rust develops.

Not to mention how long do you think that pristinely clean chain will stay that way if you properly lube it afterwards? Maybe about 20 miles.


----------



## MDM (Jun 10, 2020)

Lombard said:


> Unnecessary, not to mention stripping the old lube out of the rollers and introducing water won't allow the water to dry out of the rollers before some rust develops.
> 
> Not to mention how long do you think that pristinely clean chain will stay that way if you properly lube it afterwards? Maybe about 20 miles.


I want to strip out the old lube and dirt. I dry the chain either out in the hot sun or blow out with compressed air. 

So? What you are doing is making grinding paste (I.e., grit and oil).

Jobst Brandt wrote never oil a dirty chain. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Srode (Aug 19, 2012)

MDM said:


> I want to strip out the old lube and dirt. I dry the chain either out in the hot sun or blow out with compressed air.
> 
> So? What you are doing is making grinding paste (I.e., grit and oil).
> 
> ...


My grinding paste approach has my chains lasting 8000 miles between changes and they still haven't shown much increase in pin to pin length so probably should go longer but it just doesn't seem right. I'll probably just stick with it and keep ruining my chains.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Srode said:


> My grinding paste approach has my chains lasting 8000 miles between changes and they still haven't shown much increase in pin to pin length so probably should go longer but it just doesn't seem right. I'll probably just stick with it and keep ruining my chains.


Exactly. At 6000 miles much less 8000 miles, a chain doesn't owe me anything. 

MCM, how many miles do your chains last? As for the "grinding paste" theory, how long do you think it takes for that "grinding paste" to redevelop in a totally clean chain?

As Kerry Irons implied above, the mineral spirits added to the oil works out a lot of that dirt and grit.


----------



## MDM (Jun 10, 2020)

Lombard said:


> Exactly. At 6000 miles much less 8000 miles, a chain doesn't owe me anything.
> 
> MCM, how many miles do your chains last? As for the "grinding paste" theory, how long do you think it takes for that "grinding paste" to redevelop in a totally clean chain?
> 
> As Kerry Irons implied above, the mineral spirits added to the oil works out a lot of that dirt and grit.


I don't keep records and admit to being lazy on occasion and oiling a dirty chain. I've also forgotten to measure and have been caught out with a skipping new chain and had to buy a new cassette and/or chainring on occasion. 

From Sheldonbrown.com:

Primitive rule #1: Never oil a chain on the bike.

This means the chain should be cleaned of grit before oiling, and because this is practically impossible without submerging the chain in solvent (kerosene, commercial solvent, or paint thinner), it must be taken off the bicycle. Devices with rotating brushes that can be clamped on the chain while on the bicycle, do a fair job but are messy and do not prevent fine grit from becoming suspended in the solvent. External brushing or wiping moves grit out of sight, but mainly into the openings in the chain where subsequent oiling will carry it inside.

Never use gasoline because it is explosive and contains toxic light petroleum fractions that penetrate skin. Removing the chain from the bicycle isn't always possible. There are times (after riding in the rain) when a chain screams for oil and good cleaning is impractical. Fortunately, after riding in heavy rain, the chain is fairly clean and in that case rule #1 may be violated for humanitarian reasons. However, only an internally clean chain squeaks, so it isn't as bad as it sounds. Also, water is a moderately good lubricant, but it evaporates as soon as the road dries.

Removing solvent from the chain after rinsing is important. Compressed air is not readily available in the household, nor is a centrifuge. Manually slinging the chain around outdoors works best if the chain is a closed loop but without pressing the pin completely in. The other way is to evaporate it. Accelerated drying methods by heating should be avoided because they can be explosive.

Lubricating the chain with hot 90W gear lube works but it is also efficient fly paper, collecting plenty of hardpack between sprockets and on the outside of the chain. Motor oil is far better, but motorcycle chain and chainsaw lubricants are better yet, because they have volatile solvents that allow good penetration for their relatively viscous lubricant. Paraffin (canning wax), although clean, works poorly because it is not mobile and cannot replenish the bearing surfaces once it has been displaced. This becomes apparent with any water that gets on the chain. It immediately squeaks.

[I have found that motor oil works poorly: it washes out of the chain due to its detergent properties -- John Allen.]

Lombard, what's your criteria for when to replace a chain? I try to replace at 12 1/16".


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

MDM said:


> Lombard, what's your criteria for when to replace a chain? I try to replace at 12 1/16".


12 1/16 is the best time to replace unless you want to have to also replace the cassette.

Any idea how many miles you get out of a chain? Can you get 6000 miles out of a chain with no measurable wear? I do.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

And if we go into lock down again, you have lots and lots of idle time and are bored out of your mind, you can try this project:

https://www.sheldonbrown.com/chainclean.html


----------



## MDM (Jun 10, 2020)

Lombard said:


> 12 1/16 is the best time to replace unless you want to have to also replace the cassette.
> 
> Any idea how many miles you get out of a chain? Can you get 6000 miles out of a chain with no measurable wear? I do.


I think it's about what you guys are getting, maybe a little more. I vaguely remember getting around 10,000 miles out of a chain some years back, but I could be wrong. I'm getting good life out of them, but as I said, I've got to be more religious about measuring them for wear more often so I don't ruin cassettes and chainrings.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

MDM said:


> I think it's about what you guys are getting, maybe a little more. I vaguely remember getting around 10,000 miles out of a chain some years back, but I could be wrong. I'm getting good life out of them, but as I said, I've got to be more religious about measuring them for wear more often so I don't ruin cassettes and chainrings.


10,000 miles is certainly feasible. I'm pretty sure I could have gotten that out of my chain had it not been for the stiff link. As I mentioned before, there was no wear when I replaced it at 6000 miles. So whatever I did prevented wear. Could a more vigilant approach prevented that stiff link? Maybe, maybe not. It hardly seems worth the trouble of removing the chain when I'm getting the wear or lack thereof I'm getting.

I think Kerry Irons has the right idea as posted earlier:




Kerry Irons said:


> If you use a more dilute lube formula (3 parts odorless mineral spirits to one part oil) and flood the chain with it while pedaling the bike in the work stand, you will simultaneously clean the chain by fluidizing all the gunk and grit. Wiping the chain well and letting the solvent evaporate (lube after the ride, not before it) leaves lube inside the chain and a clean outside.


----------



## barryandjanetwil (Jan 16, 2020)

I recently waxed a newish chain using molten wax and ptfe powder. Its amazingly clean after 1200 miles but I might re do it at about 2000. 

Is it any good you'll no doubt ask - well it's too soon to show wear but it's as clean as the day I waxed it. I remain optimistic 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## Ab24029 (Feb 20, 2006)

I used a homebrew 50/50 mineral spirit and synthetic oil for a few years. Last winter I found something slightly better, I use ATF first to lube and clean the chain, wiper it clean after that. Then I started using straight Haldex fluid to lubricate the chain. 

ATF cleans the chain really well, may not be as well as removing the chain and cleaning it with kerosene( but who has time for that?). Haldex (synthetic 4WD gear oil on new cars) is very thin comparing to 90 weight oil or engine oil, so I do not mix it with mineral spirit.


----------



## MDM (Jun 10, 2020)

barryandjanetwil said:


> I recently waxed a newish chain using molten wax and ptfe powder. Its amazingly clean after 1200 miles but I might re do it at about 2000.
> 
> Is it any good you'll no doubt ask - well it's too soon to show wear but it's as clean as the day I waxed it. I remain optimistic
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


You should get good wear from wax, and of course it's clean, but my beef is you have to rewax too often, which is a pain, like every 200 miles, which is less than two weeks for me.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

DaveG said:


> Its bad typing on my part. I meant Odorless Mineral Spirits (aka paint thinner). Initially I used synthetic oil as was the approved internet recipe. Since then, I have the opinion that regular oil made from dinosaurs works just the same


Just to be clear, synthetic oils are made from dinosaurs too. They just take a more circuitous route to get from crude oil to oil in the can. Commence organic chemistry lesson in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, . . .


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

barryandjanetwil said:


> I recently waxed a newish chain using molten wax and ptfe powder. Its amazingly clean after 1200 miles but I might re do it at about 2000.


There have been lots of discussions about waxing and waxing formulas and I have NEVER heard of anyone getting that kind of mileage between waxings. Typically "wax fans" agree that you have to wax often but that the clean chain makes up for it. Maybe you are just using the wax as a carrier for the ptfe but it seems like anything that dry would flake out of the chain long before 1200 miles. How does your wax formula hold up if you get caught in the rain?


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

barryandjanetwil said:


> I recently waxed a newish chain using molten wax and ptfe powder. Its amazingly clean after 1200 miles but I might re do it at about 2000.
> 
> Is it any good you'll no doubt ask - well it's too soon to show wear but it's as clean as the day I waxed it. I remain optimistic


Nope... don't believe you one ity bity single bit.


MSPEEDWAX uses paraffin & PTFE. 
https://moltenspeedwax.com/pages/wh...ssive longevity.,wax clings to metal surfaces.
Wax has impressive longevity. A waxed chain in dry road conditions can be ridden 500 miles or more with one waxing (*we’ve had a test chain go over 800 miles before squeaking*). We don’t recommend this long an interval - *stick with around 350 to 400 miles*


Gee... maybe you should be selling your secret sauce and making $$$$$$


----------



## barryandjanetwil (Jan 16, 2020)

yes I'll sell you my formula but surely no need for such aggression. You can have it free.

My chain is clean, not squeaking and indexing fine. Maybe its wearing my cassette and chainrings horrendously, that's something I've naively yet to check, and in light of your doubts I'm going to rewax it immediately. 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

barryandjanetwil said:


> Maybe its wearing my cassette and chainrings horrendously, that's something I've naively yet to check


Tell us how you check the wear on your cassette and chainrings. 
It's probably as fantastical as the frequency you wax.


----------



## barryandjanetwil (Jan 16, 2020)

tlg said:


> Tell us how you check the wear on your cassette and chainrings.
> It's probably as fantastical as the frequency you wax.


I think my waxing period, at this time, needs to be measured in years as I've only waxed once and I've yet to measure it. 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## seaswood (Apr 8, 2012)

*Sturmey archer*

Try this.


----------



## Aladin (Oct 5, 2014)

seaswood said:


> Try this.



Do they still make the units this stuff is used on.. ??? :thumbsup: Good one though.

Hey I ordered some Chain L from FB in NY. Guy actually is an encyclopedia per bikes. I go south in 2 weeks.. I'll clean the chain and gears.. measure wear.. and give it a go.

IME.. chain wear is directly due to the crud that gets to the pins. Lots of very fine sand locally.. not much southern residence...chains last much longer there.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

Aladin said:


> I ordered some Chain L from FB in NY.


this is my lube of choice.

routinely go 700-800 miles between applications.

chain life is excellent, 8-12K miles


----------



## smokersteve (May 22, 2016)

azpeterb said:


> I've been using Dumonde Tech Lite lube for years and it works well. The best thing about it is the smell. It's heavenly. Some call it huffing but I prefer to think of it as fragrance appreciation.


I've tried nearly every major brand of lube and have settled on Dumonde Tech Lite for road cycling in southern CA. It's clean, quiet, and a little goes a long way. 
I use the regular Dumonde on dirt and gravel bikes...smells even better than the lite version


----------



## Notvintage (May 19, 2013)

Lillylube. It is brilliant for road cycling use.


----------



## duriel (Oct 10, 2013)

IMO u are all missing an important component of wear, load.
Please post your average wattage for the 12000 miles. ...or mph/total wt/elev gain. 
Then we will a clear answer. ... so this ain't over yet!


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

It's funny, I only recently bought a Park Tool CC-2, and realized my SRAM Red chain that I just replaced in late May or early June, and it was already showing up with between .50 - .75 stretch (and yes, I know it's not truly "stretched"). So, that said, clearly it's important to do thinks such as use WD40 on the outside of the chain to degrease it, and then use a good dry lube (actually I really like DuPont's Teflon Chain Saver... as well as Super Lube's spray lube. 

I realized how important the grease on the rollers were when I bathed my old 11 sp SRAM chain in gasoline. It was sparkling clean, but when I road it, it squeaked. In addition, I've read a lot of positive things about the German OEM grease SRAM uses on its chains (Gleitmo). 

All of the above said, and given I can get a SRAM PC 1130 chain for only about $20... efficiency wise, it just makes more sense to me to religiously change your change. Again, until I bought the CC-2 chain tool, I really wasn't aware of just how much I stretched such a high quality chain in such a short period of time. So, to summarize, the base grease (Gleitmo) is great, use WD40 or even gasoline (carefully) to degrease the outside chain links, inexpensive high quality chain lubes such as Dupont Chain Saver and Super Lube work excellent and are very inexpensive per oz, and finally... purchase a high quality variable (measuring) chain checker such as the Park CC-2 or Unior 1643/4 to better know when you need to switch out your worn chain.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

RidleyX said:


> It's funny, I only recently bought a Park Tool CC-2, and realized my SRAM Red chain that I just replaced in late May or early June, and it was already showing up with between .50 - .75 stretch (and yes, I know it's not truly "stretched"). So, that said, clearly it's important to do thinks such as use WD40 on the outside of the chain to degrease it, and then use a good dry lube (actually I really like DuPont's Teflon Chain Saver... as well as Super Lube's spray lube.
> 
> I realized how important the grease on the rollers were when I bathed my old 11 sp SRAM chain in gasoline. It was sparkling clean, but when I road it, it squeaked. In addition, I've read a lot of positive things about the German OEM grease SRAM uses on its chains (Gleitmo).
> 
> All of the above said, and given I can get a SRAM PC 1130 chain for only about $20... efficiency wise, it just makes more sense to me to religiously change your change. Again, until I bought the CC-2 chain tool, I really wasn't aware of just how much I stretched such a high quality chain in such a short period of time. So, to summarize, the base grease (Gleitmo) is great, use WD40 or even gasoline (carefully) to degrease the outside chain links, inexpensive high quality chain lubes such as Dupont Chain Saver and Super Lube work excellent and are very inexpensive per oz, and finally... purchase a high quality variable (measuring) chain checker such as the Park CC-2 or Unior 1643/4 to better know when you need to switch out your worn chain.


The Park Tool CC-2 can give wildly inaccurate readings, seriously.

Forget the fancy specialty tools. USE A RULER.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

Lombard said:


> The Park Tool CC-2 can give wildly inaccurate readings, seriously.
> 
> Forget the fancy specialty tools. USE A RULER.


Can I get an Amen!?


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

RidleyX said:


> It's funny, I only recently bought a Park Tool CC-2, and realized my SRAM Red chain that I just replaced in late May or early June


Reporting your chain wear in 'months' is useless. Nobody knows how much you ride your bike.



> So, that said, clearly it's important to do thinks such as use WD40 on the outside of the chain to degrease it, and then use a good dry lube (actually I really like DuPont's Teflon Chain Saver... as well as Super Lube's spray lube.


Degreasing the outside of your chain is useless. Useless.

Dry lube?  About as useful as degreasing the outside of your chain.


I lube my chain every 500-1000mi. I don't degrease the outside. Sometimes I'll wipe it with a rag if I'm bored. I get well over 5,000mi on a chain.
IMO you're doing something wrong.


----------



## Srode (Aug 19, 2012)

RidleyX said:


> It's funny, I only recently bought a Park Tool CC-2, and realized my SRAM Red chain that I just replaced in late May or early June, and it was already showing up with between .50 - .75 stretch (and yes, I know it's not truly "stretched"). So, that said, clearly it's important to do thinks such as use WD40 on the outside of the chain to degrease it, and then use a good dry lube (actually I really like DuPont's Teflon Chain Saver... as well as Super Lube's spray lube.
> 
> I realized how important the grease on the rollers were when I bathed my old 11 sp SRAM chain in gasoline. It was sparkling clean, but when I road it, it squeaked. In addition, I've read a lot of positive things about the German OEM grease SRAM uses on its chains (Gleitmo).
> 
> All of the above said, and given I can get a SRAM PC 1130 chain for only about $20... efficiency wise, it just makes more sense to me to religiously change your change. Again, until I bought the CC-2 chain tool, I really wasn't aware of just how much I stretched such a high quality chain in such a short period of time. So, to summarize, the base grease (Gleitmo) is great, use WD40 or even gasoline (carefully) to degrease the outside chain links, inexpensive high quality chain lubes such as Dupont Chain Saver and Super Lube work excellent and are very inexpensive per oz, and finally... purchase a high quality variable (measuring) chain checker such as the Park CC-2 or Unior 1643/4 to better know when you need to switch out your worn chain.


Check your next new chain with you new tool before riding and report back


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Srode said:


> Check your next new chain with you new tool before riding and report back


This may not tell us anything either depending on where the nib on the Park tool rests, you could get different readings.

I repeat: USE A RULER.


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

tlg said:


> Reporting your chain wear in 'months' is useless. Nobody knows how much you ride your bike.


Haha... I was just making a general comment that chains can wear out much faster than one would think. I have a full time job, so, I'm not riding thousands of miles a month. I just uploaded my info off my Garmin Edge the other night and I've ridden over 2300 miles since I installed the new chain around June, this year.

So there you go - better?



> Degreasing the outside of your chain is useless. Useless.
> 
> Dry lube?  About as useful as degreasing the outside of your chain.


Uhmmm, no, completely disagree. I mean, chains pick up debris.... clearly, it's helpful to keep the outside links clean as they muck up your cassette and jockey wheels, not to mention, cause additional abrasion which reduces efficiency. Seems kinda obvious.



> I lube my chain every 500-1000mi. I don't degrease the outside. Sometimes I'll wipe it with a rag if I'm bored. I get well over 5,000mi on a chain.
> IMO you're doing something wrong.


Welp, I don't know what you're saving your lube for by only applying every thousand miles, but you do you. As for getting over 5K miles, well, maybe I'm just a stronger rider than you... or, you have some type of "magic chain." Who knows...


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

Srode said:


> Check your next new chain with you new tool before riding and report back



I'll check it the next time I have it up on the stand, but I'm already aware that most manufacturers allow for a 0.25 "stretch" that allows the chains to be more efficient right out of the box. Too little tolerance makes them less efficient. SRAM and Shimano both have extremely good manufacturing tolerances, so I'm not expecting any surprises.


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

Lombard said:


> The Park Tool CC-2 can give wildly inaccurate readings, seriously.
> 
> Forget the fancy specialty tools. USE A RULER.


A bent or a abused CC-2, maybe, but right out of the box, I'd beg to differ. I was watching a video of a school bike shop teacher (yeah, imagine that) where he had a KMC digital caliper and a well-worn CC-2, and the CC-2 was bang-on with the KMC digital caliper. My CC-2 is brand new, and I know how to properly use it, AND my shifting had degraded (vs the new chain), so I'm confident the chain was worn and the CC-2 confirmed my suspicion. It was well past the .50 mark and approaching the .75 stretch mark.


----------



## duriel (Oct 10, 2013)

I'm assuming you just bought a bunch of stock in the guys that manuf. the chains? 
Do you 'Light It Up' after you soak in gas? OMG!


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

RidleyX said:


> Uhmmm, no, completely disagree. I mean, chains pick up debris.... clearly, it's helpful to keep the outside links clean as they muck up your cassette and jockey wheels, not to mention, cause additional abrasion which reduces efficiency. Seems kinda obvious.


You can disagree but you're wrong. Dirt/grease stuck to the outside doesn't magically jump inside the rollers.



> Welp, I don't know what you're saving your lube for by only applying every thousand miles, but you do you. As for getting over 5K miles, well, maybe I'm just a stronger rider than you... or, you have some type of "magic chain." Who knows...


I know. Lots of people know. It's not a magic chain. This is how long ALL my chains last. Many chains over many years. A well lubed chain lasts that long. 
This is how I know you're doing something wrong.



> I'll check it the next time I have it up on the stand, but I'm already aware that most manufacturers allow for a 0.25 "stretch" that allows the chains to be more efficient right out of the box.


OMG. No you do not know that! That is absolutely not true.


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

duriel said:


> I'm assuming you just bought a bunch of stock in the guys that manuf. the chains?
> Do you 'Light It Up' after you soak in gas? OMG!



Really, a $20 chain after 2k miles is too rich for your blood?

As far as "lighting it up," you act as though you don't drive around in a mobile gas container every day. Many petroleum distillates are flammable, so they all should be handled with care - and I do.


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

tlg said:


> You can disagree but you're wrong. Dirt/grease stuck to the outside doesn't magically jump inside the rollers.


I'm not wrong at all - muck on the outside of your chain also does not "magically" stay in place, either. It tends to get into the rest of your drivetrain - esp the cassette. You do realize how a derailleur and a cassette work together, right? You do realize that the outer links will hit the cogs on your rear cassette - right? I mean, this is fairly elemental stuff.



> I know. Lots of people know. It's not a magic chain. This is how long ALL my chains last. Many chains over many years. A well lubed chain lasts that long.
> This is how I know you're doing something wrong.


Now, this was a RED chain with hollow pins, but chains do not usually last 5K miles from what I've read. I also don't hear anyone else on this forum jumping in to second your claim of 5k mile longevity. I mean, you can get 5K miles from a chain before it _*breaks*_, but in a modern tight-tolerance 11 speed drivetrain, I don't thing most people who are actually checking their chains (properly) are getting 5k miles on a chain. 

Just as an FYI to reinforce that you're completely wrong - a quick google confirms what I said and discounts what you claim (are you sure you're not measuring distance in kilometers?):



> *6 Useful Facts About Your Bike Chain | Bicycling*
> 
> 
> Replacing your *chain* regularly *can* prolong the life of your drivetrain. Most mechanics agree that you *should* replace your *chain* about every 2,000 to 3,000 miles, depending on your riding style.Apr 12, 2016







> OMG. No you do not know that! That is absolutely not true.


OK, here you go (see below). A brand new Dura Ace chain (made in Japan, and subject to very tight manufacturing tolerances) measured .12mm "wear" brand new, out of the box. .50 is considered worn out, so .12 is approx 25% of .50. 



> That all said, Kerin’s data does suggest the Shimano Ultegra HG-701 11-speed chain offers better durability over the more expensive Dura-Ace HG-901 model. There are a few factors here, but it comes down to the fact that Kerin’s sample set of Ultegra chains was vastly larger than that of the Dura-Ace. And where the Dura-Ace 11-speed posted better elongation wear numbers, it fell short with the digital chain checker (roller play and wear).
> 
> _*This is explained by the Dura-Ace chain sample coming out of the box with a measured .12mm “wear” on the KMC digital chain checker, whereas the batch of Ultegra chains started at .05/.06mm measurable “wear”. *_Keep in mind that Kerin’s test considers .5mm to be worn out, and so .12mm is almost a quarter of the allowable wear allowance. Kerin believes this is a batch variance, and that it’s quite possible (even likely) the Dura-Ace chain can offer improved durability.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

RidleyX said:


> ...most manufacturers allow for a 0.25 "stretch" that allows the chains to be more efficient right out of the box. Too little tolerance makes them less efficient.


wth does this mean...???


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

RidleyX said:


> I also don't hear anyone else on this forum jumping in to second your claim of 5k mile longevity.


see posts #30, 48


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

Oxtox said:


> wth does this mean...???



See my last post - I quoted the article that discussed it. Here is some additional info, though:



> THE MOST EFFICIENT 11 AND 12-SPEED CHAINS
> 
> There are a mind-numbing number of factors that go into making a chain efficient, and that’s no surprise when you consider there are over 38,000 unique instances of sliding friction involved every minute at 90 rpm. And when it comes to understanding what makes a chain fast, there’s arguably nobody on this planet that knows the space better than Jason Smith, formerly of FrictionFacts and now the Chief Technology Officer at CeramicSpeed.
> 
> *So what makes a chain fast?* _*The brief answer is: larger gaps between the various components, allowing lubricant to travel freely and do its job while reducing the sheer amount of friction between the various chain parts. *_Examples of this are seen with KMC and Shimano chains, which _*are both known to show minor amounts of roller-based wear when new*_, and according to CeramicSpeed, are lightning-fast, too.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

RidleyX said:


> I'm not wrong at all - muck on the outside of your chain also does not "magically" stay in place, either. It tends to get into the rest of your driver train - esp the cassette. You do realize how a derailleur and a cassette work together, right? You do realize that the outer links will hit the cogs on your rear cassette - right? I mean, this is fairly elemental stuff.


We're talking about chain wear. Now you want to change the subject.

My current cassette is at 15,000mi and perfectly fine. Lube doesn't harm the cassette. I'm 10000% confident what I'm doing is correct and what you're doing is not.




> Now, this was a RED chain with hollow pins, but chains do not usually last 5K miles from what I've read. I also don't hear anyone else on this forum jumping in to second your claim of 5k mile longevity.


Demonstrating you don't know *WTF *you're talking about. Re-read the thread. Others here have said they get over 5,000mi. Search the forum... this is not unusual.




> I mean, you can get 5K miles from a chain before it _*breaks*_,


Breaks? OMG LMAO. How long have you been riding a bike?




> Just as an FYI to reinforce that you're completely wrong - a quick google confirms what I said and discounts what you claim


You should read that article closer. It doesn't say that. 
And if you're putting all your wealth of knowledge in something you read on Bicycling.com, it explains a lot.




> OK, here you go (see below). A brand new Dura Ace chain (made in Japan, and subject to very tight manufacturing tolerances) measured .12mm "wear" brand new, out of the box. .50 is considered worn out, so .12 is approx 25% of .50.


That doesn't say what you said...
"I'm already aware that most manufacturers allow for a 0.25 "stretch" that allows the chains to be more efficient right out of the box."


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

RidleyX said:


> See my last post - I quoted the article that discussed it. Here is some additional info, though:


lmao... FrictionFacts and CeramicSpeed are some of the least trustworthy sources. They are marketing gimmicks. 

Are you gonna school us on the amazingness of ceramic bearings next?


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

tlg said:


> We're talking about chain wear. Now you want to change the subject.


Nobody's changing anything - cassette muck gets onto the chain and vice versa. Once again, you're wrong, and I proved it, but you somehow use this... what did Walter Isacson say about Steve Jobs... I believe he call it a "reality distortion field" to explain why a bunch of garbage on the outside of your chain links on an 11 speed drivetrain somehow doesn't matter. That's ludicrous, and you have no idea what you're talking about.



> My current cassette is at 15,000mi and perfectly fine. Lube doesn't harm the cassette. I'm 10000% confident what I'm doing is correct and what you're doing is not.


15K miles on one cassette??? Recommendations are to change the cassette maybe once for every 2 chains. Of course, you're claiming 5K miles per chain, when most would change in 2k - 3k miles, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised by this, either.



> Demonstrating you don't know *WTF *you're talking about. Re-read the thread. Others here have said they get over 5,000mi. Search the forum... this is not unusual.


Haha! Because I missed one other misinformed person's quote in a large forum, means I don't know WTF (in bold) I'm talking about. I'd argue that you've just proven that at least you and that other guy don't know *WTF*either of you are talking about. You can ride a chain 5K miles, but it will almost definitely start to wear down the teeth on your cassette cogs, prematurely, not to mention contribute to poor shifting.



> Breaks? OMG LMAO. How long have you been riding a bike?


OMG yourself, lol! It's called a joke... a/k/a as an "exaggeration." How long have I been riding - how long have YOU been reading comments in forums? I mean, people sometimes say, after a long ride, that their legs feel like they're on fire... just to be clear, you don't have to worry, their kit really isn't engulfed in flames. It's an expression.



> You should read that article closer. It doesn't say that.
> And if you're putting all your wealth of knowledge in something you read on Bicycling.com, it explains a lot.


Uhmmm, I was simply doing a quick google search to see what popped up regarding chain replacement recommendation and first damn thing I noticed on the very first Google result was that. While you're busy tell me how much you know about bike chains, why don't you quote me ONE reputable article that states an 11 speed bike chain should last more than 5,000 miles. I'll wait....



> That doesn't say what you said...
> "I'm already aware that most manufacturers allow for a 0.25 "stretch" that allows the chains to be more efficient right out of the box."


Okay, wow, I'll admit, I did not have the details down EXACTLY, but that's 25% "worn out" and I wrote ".25"... I simply did not recall it, exactly. The point is that new chains don't get to you with no "stetch" built into them... the article points out that manufacturers allow play between the plates and links to allow lube to travel easily and too little tolerance actually causes additional friction. The best/fastest chains (such as the highest rated Ultegra and Dura Ace chains) come from the manufacturer with "built-in stretch."


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

RidleyX said:


> Nobody's changing anything - cassette muck gets onto the chain and vice versa. Once again, you're wrong, and I proved it


You didn't prove anything. Grease gets on a cassette. Whoopty do. ut:







> 15K miles on one cassette??? Recommendations are to change the cassette maybe once for every 2 chains. Of course, you're claiming 5K miles per chain, when most would change in 2k - 3k miles, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised by this, either.


'Recommendations' from sources like Bicycling.com for people who don't know what they're doing. 
Most serious riders don't change their chains in 3,000 miles. That's what noobs do who don't know how to maintain their chain.

Yea... 15,000miles on a cassette is no big deal. 





> Haha! Because I missed one other misinformed person's quote in a large forum


More than one. You should quit while you're behind.





> Okay, wow, I'll admit, I did not have the details down EXACTLY, but that's 25% "worn out" and I wrote ".25"... I simply did not recall it, exactly. The point is that new chains don't get to you with no "stetch" built into them... the article points out that manufacturers allow play between the plates and links to allow lube to travel easily and too little tolerance actually causes additional friction. The best/fastest chains (such as the highest rated Ultegra and Dura Ace chains) come from the manufacturer with "built-in stretch."


Clueless... just clueless. Those chains aren't 25% 'worn out'. That is not what they're talking about. 
You don't understand how the KMC Digital chain checker works. And either way, the manufacturers surely aren't intentionally building in wear like you claim to make the chains faster.
OMG this is just nuts.


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

tlg said:


> You didn't prove anything. Grease gets on a cassette. Whoopty do. ut:


You really don't know what you're talking about. It's not just grease that get's on your cassette... are you really that myopic? The grease picks up pollutants from the road and that grit gets into your drivetrain and leads to wear. A bike chain is not a sealed system. Maybe gimme your address and I'll mail you a free Bike Maintenance 101 book, or maybe more aptly - Bicycle Maintenance for Dummies. 




> 'Recommendations' from sources like Bicycling.com for people who don't know what they're doing.
> Most serious riders don't change their chains in 3,000 miles. That's what noobs do who don't know how to maintain their chain.
> 
> Yea... 15,000miles on a cassette is no big deal.


Hahaha! Yes, the writers at Bicycling Magazine have no idea what they're talking about, esp when consulting experts in their field. No, the guy that changes his chain after 5K miles and cassette after 15K miles and claims the outside of your chain plates don't matter.... He's the expert! LMAO!





> Clueless... just clueless. Those chains aren't 25% 'worn out'. That is not what they're talking about.
> You don't understand how the KMC Digital chain checker works. And either way, the manufacturers surely aren't intentionally building in wear like you claim to make the chains faster.
> OMG this is just nuts.


I more than understand how the KMC chain checker works. I've already pointed out that the video I watched showed a bike mechanic with both the CC-2 and the KMC showing that the readings both matched. Yes, you and your dollar store wooden ruler are getting more accurate results measuring the outside pin-to-pin distance... getting the centers of both pins exactly precise (of course). Maybe this is why you THINK your 5K mile chains are okay... 

Also, once again, here's the article that refers to the fact that top manufacturers deliberately build in "stretch" into their brand new chains in order to make them faster. Again, you really don't know what you're talking about. I'll take the engineer from Ceramic Speed's analysis over the angry forum guy with 15K mile cassettes, any day....



> _THE MOST EFFICIENT 11 AND 12-SPEED CHAINS
> 
> __There are a mind-numbing number of factors that go into making a chain efficient, and that’s no surprise when you consider there are over 38,000 unique instances of sliding friction involved every minute at 90 rpm. And when it comes to understanding what makes a chain fast, there’s arguably nobody on this planet that knows the space better than Jason Smith, formerly of FrictionFacts and now the Chief Technology Officer at CeramicSpeed.
> _
> _*So what makes a chain fast?* *The brief answer is: larger gaps between the various components, allowing lubricant to travel freely and do its job while reducing the sheer amount of friction between the various chain parts. *Examples of this are seen with KMC and Shimano chains, which *are both known to show minor amounts of roller-based wear when new*, and according to CeramicSpeed, are lightning-fast, too._


----------



## duriel (Oct 10, 2013)

... a few comments.
The clearances between new metal parts are defined as 'tolerances'. Anyone who refers to tolerances as 'wear' and claims to be mechanically /technically knowledgeable is suspect. Wear in chains is eccentric, no new chain is made eccentric. 
When you measure the chain, you don't measure center to center of the pins, you measure from leading or trailing edge to leading/trailing edge, thereby eliminating any guesswork on where the center is.
.. please continue on with your comical babble.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

RidleyX said:


> A bent or a abused CC-2, maybe, but right out of the box, I'd beg to differ. I was watching a video of a school bike shop teacher (yeah, imagine that) where he had a KMC digital caliper and a well-worn CC-2, and the CC-2 was bang-on with the KMC digital caliper. My CC-2 is brand new, and I know how to properly use it, AND my shifting had degraded (vs the new chain), so I'm confident the chain was worn and the CC-2 confirmed my suspicion. It was well past the .50 mark and approaching the .75 stretch mark.


Well let's see. I can tell you I got 6,000 miles out of my last chain and the only reason I changed it was that it had a stiff link I couldn't work loose. The chain actually had *no measurable wear*. I changed it and guess what? It still shifts flawlessly with the existing cassette and crankset that now have 8,600 miles on them.

Sooooo, if your chain is worn at 2,300 miles, you are either doing something wrong with your method of chain maintenance or you are using the Park tool wrong.

Since you claim to know so much, why don't you prove me wrong and measure your chain wear with A RULER? Humor me.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

RidleyX said:


> You really don't know what you're talking about. It's not just grease that get's on your cassette... are you really that myopic? The grease picks up pollutants from the road and that grit gets into your drivetrain and leads to wear.


pollutants  Go on... keep 'educating' us. 
Cassettes wear at the teeth when the chain becomes elongated. Not from pollutants.

My 15,000mi cassette isn't worn. Clearly I know what I'm talking about. 
But tell us more about your 2,300mi worn chain 




> Also, once again, here's the article that refers to the fact that top manufacturers deliberately build in "stretch" into their brand new chains in order to make them faster. Again, you really don't know what you're talking about. I'll take the engineer from Ceramic Speed's analysis over the angry forum guy with 15K mile cassettes, any day....


Angry? You're the one casting insults and getting all worked up. Speaking in circles and repeating yourself.

FrictionFacts and CeramicSpeed are some of the least trustworthy sources. They are marketing gimmicks. Us real engineers know this. Suckers buy into it.

You do you... enjoy your dry lube and 2,300mi chains.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

This thread is really delivering. Seriously, thanks for the entertainment guys. Lombard...did you really have to do this?


----------



## rudge66 (Apr 1, 2019)

*sandbox mentality*

obsessive need for cyber attention, affirmation and security.


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

duriel said:


> ... a few comments.
> The clearances between new metal parts are defined as 'tolerances'. Anyone who refers to tolerances as 'wear' and claims to be mechanically /technically knowledgeable is suspect. Wear in chains is eccentric, no new chain is made eccentric.


We all understand that a brand new chain is not actually "worn" - so thank you Mr Obvious. The author of the article was simply using chain "wear" as a medium of measurement. When using a chain wear gauge, which is what the article was using to measure chains, a new chain actually measures "wear" and does not start at absolute zero.



> When you measure the chain, you don't measure center to center of the pins, you measure from leading or trailing edge to leading/trailing edge, thereby eliminating any guesswork on where the center is.
> .. please continue on with your comical babble.


Oh really, is that the only way to measure a chain - in fact even the "recommended way" of measuring a chain? Maybe read the below since it doesn't appear to agree with you and agrees with me:



> *MEASURING THE CHAIN ELONGATION*
> 
> It’s often recommended that the most accurate and best way to measure your chain is with a ruler. The theory is that by measuring pin-to-pin you can accurately gauge how much wear has occurred in the components of the chain and it removes any question over roller tolerances and wear, instead focusing solely on the actual pitch of the chain.
> However, in my opinion, this process is fraught with the likelihood of user-error. *Lining up a ruler from the centre of one pin to another 10 or 12 links away, all while remaining within less than half a millimetre of accuracy, isn’t something that many can do consistently. *Additionally, you won’t be able to easily add tension to that chain, and so dirt and lube will have a huge impact on the measurement.
> ...


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

Lombard said:


> Well let's see. I can tell you I got 6,000 miles out of my last chain and the only reason I changed it was that it had a stiff link I couldn't work loose. The chain actually had *no measurable wear*. I changed it and guess what? It still shifts flawlessly with the existing cassette and crankset that now have 8,600 miles on them.


I highly doubt that a chain with 6K miles on it has "no measurable wear." It's more likely that you are simply not accurately measuring your chain if you're depending solely upon a hand held straight ruler. What exactly were you using to measure a chain with 6K miles on it?


Most _mechanics_ agree....


> Replacing your chain regularly can prolong the life of your drivetrain.
> 
> Most mechanics agree that you should replace your chain about every 2,000 to 3,000 miles, depending on your riding style. Many Tour De France riders wear out two or even three chains on their primary bike over the course of the three-week race.



And as far as mountain bikes are concerned...


> There are many variables that affect how long a chain will last. It could last several months, or it could last much longer. A typical mountain bike chain will last 750 miles of single track riding. It’s not easy to gauge exactly how long a chain will last, but there are ways to prolong the life of the chain.



Here's another Bicycling article on road bike chain wear:


> The 2,000-Mile RuleTo avoid this accelerated wear of your cassette and chainrings, a general rule of thumb is to replace your bike’s chain every 2,000 miles. Mind you, this is just a starting point. No two chains will wear at exactly the same rate because no two riders treat their chains the same.
> 
> If you’re the type who spins easy gears, meticulously cleans and lubes the chain after every ride, never rides in the rain, and weighs as much as a WorldTour climbing specialist, your chain is likely to last longer than 2,000 miles. But if you love to push big gears, ride rain or shine all the time, and don’t even own shop rags, getting over 2,000 miles out of your chain is likely a pipe dream.
> 
> https://www.bicycling.com/repair/a33034853/how-to-replace-bike-chain/


A TDF rider weigh on avg between 132 to 145 lbs, so is that you, then? Maybe you just "spin easy gears" over those 5K + miles....

As an aside, prior to purchasing my CC2, I really didn't know about the "2000 mile rule" on chain longevity." That's the funny thing, I'm a more recent convert to the need to more religiously change out chains due to the fact that elongated changes not only become less efficient, but start to accelerate drivetrain wear to the rear cogs, the jockey wheels, and even the expensive front chain rings. So, color me a bit surprised that I received so much resistance to what appears to be rather common bike maintenance knowledge (at least to those that know more about bike maintenance).


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

rudge66 said:


> obsessive need for cyber attention, affirmation and security.


Please tell us more about this affliction that besets you...


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

tlg said:


> pollutants  Go on... keep 'educating' us.
> Cassettes wear at the teeth when the chain becomes elongated. Not from pollutants.


You couldn't possibly be this ignorant... clearly, you were wrong and now you're trying hopelessly to defend your previous position. Pollutants and debris are the same things - why do you think people clean chains at all? The chains become _polluted_ with foreign _debris_ --- or do you ride your bike in some type of clean room? Those of us that ride our bikes in the real world, where the paths are sometimes not paved, and the weather is not always perfect and sometimes even - rains... the chains become _contaminated_ and need to be cleaned.

I mean, you've heard of the concepts before, I'd hope, right...????




> My 15,000mi cassette isn't worn. Clearly I know what I'm talking about.
> But tell us more about your 2,300mi worn chain


Yeah, I'd ask for a second opinion on that one... regularly changing your chains and using a high quality cassette can definitely extend the life of your cassette, but you're not regularly changing your chain, so it seems reasonable to conclude your cassette is likely shot after about 10K miles, let alone 15K miles.



> Angry? You're the one casting insults and getting all worked up. Speaking in circles and repeating yourself.


Hahaha... "speaking in circles and repeating yourself," and *I'm* the one that's casting insults. Okaaaayyyy.



> FrictionFacts and CeramicSpeed are some of the least trustworthy sources. They are marketing gimmicks. Us real engineers know this. Suckers buy into it.
> 
> You do you... enjoy your dry lube and 2,300mi chains.


Why are Friction Facts and CeramicSpeed the least trustworthy sources - but YOU are a trustworth source? Also, what evidence do you have that a Park Tool CC-2 does not work? I mean, you seem to almost be one on of those crazy conspiracy theorist where every media source is lying, and standards can't be relied upon (such as chain checking tools), but only YOU know the truth. 

Well, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and I tend to respect the opinions of PUBLISHED journalists and experts, especially when there are numerous sources on the same subject that all appear to agree - including every day pro bike mechanics.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

cxwrench said:


> This thread is really delivering. Seriously, thanks for the entertainment guys. Lombard...did you really have to do this?


Oh come on, CX. We haven't had a good chain lube slug fest in a long time, so we were due. Join in the fun!


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

RidleyX said:


> I highly doubt that a chain with 6K miles on it has "no measurable wear." It's more likely that you are simply not accurately measuring your chain if you're depending solely upon a hand held straight ruler. What exactly were you using to measure a chain with 6K miles on it?


Two things - a ruler AND I compared it to a brand new chain. No wear.

Anecdotal, yes. However, there are enough people who even get 10,000 miles or more out of their chains before changing them and their cassettes are still going strong with no shifting problems with a new chain.

Whatever I or any of these other riders are doing works. I really don't care why is works. What I care about is that it works.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

RidleyX said:


> You couldn't possibly be this ignorant... clearly, you were wrong and now you're trying hopelessly to defend your previous position. Pollutants and debris are the same things - why do you think people clean chains at all? The chains become _polluted_ with foreign _debris_ --- or do you ride your bike in some type of clean room? Those of us that ride our bikes in the real world, where the paths are sometimes not paved, and the weather is not always perfect and sometimes even - rains... the chains become _contaminated_ and need to be cleaned.
> I mean, you've heard of the concepts before, I'd hope, right...????


You're so angry :mad5:
Nothing you just ranted about has anything to do with 'pollutants and debris' wearing cassettes. (because that doesn't happen). My position is fine thanks.




> Yeah, I'd ask for a second opinion on that one... regularly changing your chains and using a high quality cassette can definitely extend the life of your cassette, but you're not regularly changing your chain, so it seems reasonable to conclude your cassette is likely shot after about 10K miles, let alone 15K miles.


I do regularly change my chain and replace them at 0.5%. I put on a new chain and the cassette is fine. Your conclusions are wrong.




> Why are Friction Facts and CeramicSpeed the least trustworthy sources


CermicSpeed owns Frictions Facts. It's not an independent source. It's a marketing gimmick. Everything CermicSpeed does is gimmicks to sell you their stuff. 




> Also, what evidence do you have that a Park Tool CC-2 does not work?


I never said anything about a Park Tool CC-2 . Not once. Rather than typing out your long winded rants, perhaps actually pay attention to what people are saying. 
But in regards to measurement gauges.... they all have inherent measurement error. 

Chain Wear Measuring Tools

I'm not anti measurement gauge. I use one. A cheap one. For quick checks. And when it get's closer to worn I use a ruler. 




> I mean, you seem to almost be one on of those crazy conspiracy theorist where every media source is lying, and standards can't be relied upon (such as chain checking tools), but only YOU know the truth.


Nope. See above. You're just making up stuff.
There are many of us who regularly get over 5,000mi from a chain. And we're not trying to sell you anything.

But... you do you... enjoy your dry lube and 2,300mi chains.


----------



## Srode (Aug 19, 2012)

RidleyX said:


> A bent or a abused CC-2, maybe, but right out of the box, I'd beg to differ. I was watching a video of a school bike shop teacher (yeah, imagine that) where he had a KMC digital caliper and a well-worn CC-2, and the CC-2 was bang-on with the KMC digital caliper. My CC-2 is brand new, and I know how to properly use it, AND my shifting had degraded (vs the new chain), so I'm confident the chain was worn and the CC-2 confirmed my suspicion. It was well past the .50 mark and approaching the .75 stretch mark.


so, for grins, I pulled a brand new Ultegra 11 speed chain out of my tool box, opened the pacakage and checked it with my cc-2 which (this is the second time I've used this useless paper weight) and I get 50% worn. Of course the tool says .25 to 50 for a new chain so ok. As far as measuring pin to pin length as the basis for checking chain wear, a couple months ago I put a brand new Dura Ace cassette on one of my bikes and wanted to make darn sure the chain wasn't worn before running it so I popped the master link and compared 112 link length between my 3000 mile chain and a brand new Dura Ace chain and the difference side by side was about 1/16th of an inch so no appreciable wear. Same chain showed no difference on pin to pin length over 12 inches. So how in the world would this tool help assess a chain being worn and need to be replaced when the range for a new one is as wide as the difference between the top end of the range for new and one that needs to be replaced, 0.25%? 

So about 1000+ miles later so a total of around 4000 miles, I checked it again with the CC-2 tool for comparison (literally a couple minutes ago) and viola, it shows 50% wear just like my new chain. And no, the CC-2 isn't damaged, it's like new 

New chain picture


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

tlg said:


> You're so angry :mad5: QUOTE]
> 
> yeah, gotta love a FNG who comes in with a contentious, condescending, and mostly erroneous batch of blather...
> 
> his commentary reminds me of our ol' pal 11spd.


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

Srode said:


> so, for grins, I pulled a brand new Ultegra 11 speed chain out of my tool box, opened the pacakage and checked it with my cc-2 which (this is the second time I've used this useless paper weight) and I get 50% worn. Of course the tool says .25 to 50 for a new chain so ok. As far as measuring pin to pin length as the basis for checking chain wear, a couple months ago I put a brand new Dura Ace cassette on one of my bikes and wanted to make darn sure the chain wasn't worn before running it so I popped the master link and compared 112 link length between my 3000 mile chain and a brand new Dura Ace chain and the difference side by side was about 1/16th of an inch so no appreciable wear. Same chain showed no difference on pin to pin length over 12 inches. So how in the world would this tool help assess a chain being worn and need to be replaced when the range for a new one is as wide as the difference between the top end of the range for new and one that needs to be replaced, 0.25%?
> 
> So about 1000+ miles later so a total of around 4000 miles, I checked it again with the CC-2 tool for comparison (literally a couple minutes ago) and viola, it shows 50% wear just like my new chain. And no, the CC-2 isn't damaged, it's like new


I've read that the CC2 is more likely to overestimate stretch as par as underestimate it. Also, the chain is supposed to be on the bike under some type of load to get a good reading. The CC2 won't be completely accurate simply holding the chain in your hand. None the less, it is completely possible that your new Ultegra chain comes from the Shimano factory in Japan with built in "slop" for efficiency. So, the .50 reading is likely not a good one, but if you place the chain on the bike, then it should be more accurate. It's argued that to get maximum accuracy, you'd need to actually place a true load on it, as if you were standing on the pedal, but I believe the CC2 is built know that's unlikely to happen and the recommendations for changing out a chain based on no additional load other than being on the bike - are likely built into the tool.

As far as the mileage you're getting out of your Shimano chains, sure, that doesn't sound crazy. Different riders of different strength, riding different styles (ie - larger gears), and of different weights and maintenance habits riding in different environments (ie - such as unpaved bike trails with lots of dust) will have different chain longevities. I've taken good care of my new RED chain, and have lubed it with the best lube and wiped it down, rarely riding in the rain, and mostly on a paved relatively flat bike trail... and I still only got a bit over 2K miles from it. I wasn't planning on changing it that early, but when I noticed some degradation in my shifting, I decided that it was the perfect time to break out the new Park CC-2.


----------



## Srode (Aug 19, 2012)

RidleyX said:


> The CC2 won't be completely accurate simply holding the chain in your hand. None the less, it is completely possible that your new Ultegra chain comes from the Shimano factory in Japan with built in "slop" for efficiency. So, the .50 reading is likely not a good one, but if you place the chain on the bike, then it should be more accurate. It's argued that to get maximum accuracy, you'd need to actually place a true load on it, as if you were standing on the pedal, but I believe the CC2 is built know that's unlikely to happen and the recommendations for changing out a chain based on no additional load other than being on the bike - are likely built into the tool.


So you are saying that if it was on the bike with a load on it the new unused chain would show less wear? Please explain how that would happen.......


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

tlg said:


> You're so angry :mad5:
> Nothing you just ranted about has anything to do with 'pollutants and debris' wearing cassettes. (because that doesn't happen). My position is fine thanks.


Okay, that's a bit of projection as I'm not angry. My OP wasn't really meant to be controversial, but I suspected this topic brought up all types of difft positions, just like threads on car oils. That said, why would people buy dry lubes and waxes if their chains didn't pick up contaminants? Why would people use WD40 and other degreasers on their chains if that wasn't the case? Your opinion seems to be on the far fringes regarding chain maintenance/cleaning.



> I do regularly change my chain and replace them at 0.5%. I put on a new chain and the cassette is fine. Your conclusions are wrong.


If you're using a straight ruler to measure, then that previous post I made provided info on why using straight rulers has generally been viewed as unreliable, esp given the very minor distances... millimeters that are being measured.



> CermicSpeed owns Frictions Facts. It's not an independent source. It's a marketing gimmick. Everything CermicSpeed does is gimmicks to sell you their stuff.


I'm aware, and I also agree that those $400 + CeramicSpeed monster jockey wheels are highly overpriced; they're a bit more bike bling than utilitarian. None the less, CeramicSpeed purchased Friction Facts in order to obtain it's ower/CEO and his testing process. I've read a couple articles based upon CeramicSpeed's findings, and the truth is that their findings seem to match other independent tests... Squirt tends to come out on top of the bike lubes, and Shimano Ultegra/Dura Ace chains are found to be the fastest most efficient chains sold.




> I never said anything about a Park Tool CC-2 . Not once. Rather than typing out your long winded rants, perhaps actually pay attention to what people are saying.
> But in regards to measurement gauges.... they all have inherent measurement error.
> 
> Chain Wear Measuring Tools
> ...





> Nope. See above. You're just making up stuff.
> There are many of us who regularly get over 5,000mi from a chain. And we're not trying to sell you anything.
> 
> But... you do you... enjoy your dry lube and 2,300mi chains.


That wasn't you that either said "just use a ruler" or the one that said "amen to that?" Either way, you haven't been too supportive of the results of the CC-2. I stated I used a brand new CC-2 on my chain (installed on bike) and it came back with .50 - .75... I did not read one response where you said, yeah, I agree, time to change your chain. So, to clarify your position - you agree with the CC-2 results, but you're questioning my care of the SRAM RED chain that is only ridden on bike paths, receives regular wipe downs and lubrication with lubes such as Super Lube and DuPont's Chain Saver. And my bike is even transported in the back of my car, and not on a bike rack, exposed to the elements. It's rarely in the rain, as well. What exactly don't you agree with?


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

Oxtox said:


> tlg said:
> 
> 
> > You're so angry :mad5: QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Srode said:


> So you are saying that if it was on the bike with a load on it the new unused chain would show less wear? Please explain how that would happen.......


Maybe the load he's talking about is a load of BS.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

RidleyX said:


> I've read that the CC2 is more likely to overestimate stretch as par as underestimate it. Also, the chain is supposed to be on the bike under some type of load to get a good reading.


The tension from derailleur springs is plenty of "load" to get a good reading. This is not a 2 person job. 



RidleyX said:


> I've taken good care of my new RED chain, and have *lubed it with the best lube* and wiped it down, rarely riding in the rain, and mostly on a paved relatively flat bike trail... and I still only got a bit over 2K miles from it. I wasn't planning on changing it that early, but when I noticed some degradation in my shifting, I decided that it was the perfect time to break out the new Park CC-2.


Well then, I'm guessing that with all other variables ruled out, that "*best lube*" isn't really the best if you're only getting 2,300 miles before experiencing shifting problems due to wear. :nonod:


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

RidleyX said:


> I've taken good care of my new RED chain, and have lubed it with the best lube and wiped it down, rarely riding in the rain, and mostly on a paved relatively flat bike trail... and I still only got a bit over 2K miles from it.


Clearly.... not the best lube.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

velodog said:


> Maybe the load he's talking about is a load of BS.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to velodog again.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

RidleyX said:


> What exactly don't you agree with?


Simple... you're not using 'the best' lube.

You ride on bike paths in dry conditions, take meticulous care of your chain, keep it shiny clean... and only get 2,300mi. 

I ride on real roads, I ride year round. I ride in the rain. I ride in the winter. I ride on salt covered roads. I don't take meticulous care. My chain rarely looks shiny. 
And I get over 5,000mi. I put a new chain on my old cassette and it shifts perfect.


So... back to my very first post. Based on my (and others) many years of experience. IMO you're doing something wrong.


But go ahead... keep using your special lube. None of us will lose sleep.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

RidleyX said:


> Listen OxyClean............


Oh, so now you're resorting to insults? Mmmkay.




RidleyX said:


> ..........nothing I said was erroneous, and I simply made a non-hostile post that wasn't a reply to anyone else, and pretty much was attacked from the onset. So, when other forum members are attacking you, and questioning your knowledge and credibility, and essentially stating you don't know what you're talking about - that's the victim's fault? I was condescending in my opening post? Really? Did you even read my OP? I'm betting not.
> 
> I'm no troll, so please don't treat me like one. At the same time, if I'm getting attacked - let alone attacked on such shaky ground, then yeah, I'm going to respond.


No. People are "attacking" you as you say because everybody who has responded to you in this thread has pointed out that you are wrong. You then go on pontificating misinformation from questionable sources, people call you out on it.

So now YOU are playing the victim card becoming offended and saying people are insulting you? Sounds like either a troll or someone with a very thin skin.


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

Lombard said:


> Two things - a ruler AND I compared it to a brand new chain. No wear.
> 
> Anecdotal, yes. However, there are enough people who even get 10,000 miles or more out of their chains before changing them and their cassettes are still going strong with no shifting problems with a new chain.
> 
> Whatever I or any of these other riders are doing works. I really don't care why is works. What I care about is that it works.


Just wanted to say, first off - nice to meet you. Second, I'm actually a newer convert to the "2k mile rule." I honestly do a lot of my own work on cars and bikes, and am naturally suspicious of mechanics - but respect their knowledge (it's their goodfaith that i'll often question). That said, I rode my new Ridley Noah RS since about mid-2014 until one ride into 2020... on the same chain and cassette. A female friend of mine that has a bike shop mechanic friend, told her that she needed a new cassette and chain. I was like, "oh come on," I've never changed my chain or cassette, yet... but at the same time, my shifting wasn't all that great (lot's of missed gears, and just less-than-smooth shifting). 

I didn't even own a chain checking tool at the time, but I had decided at the beginning of the season that I would re-cable the bike's internal cabling, install new bar tape, install new jockey wheels, and install a new SRAM RED chain + SRAM PG-1170 cassette. It was only after all of this work (the internal cabling was a royal pain) that I started to learn more about chain wear and normal replacement intervals. I decided that I needed a good chain checker, as well, and got a decent deal on a new CC-2, and that's when I realized my chain was ALREADY worn out. Also, since SRAM's non-RED chains are so inexpensive (only about $20), there just didn't seem to be much reason NOT to replace them when there was evidence of excessive stretch. Especially with modern quick links... it just made sense to me to not mess around with new chain swaps.


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

tlg said:


> Simple... you're not using 'the best' lube.
> 
> You ride on bike paths in dry conditions, take meticulous care of your chain, keep it shiny clean... and only get 2,300mi.


So, what do you suppose that I'm "doing wrong?" Btw, you never mentioned what chain you're using, what lube you're using, or what cassette you're using, either. I've mentioned the use of DuPont Chainsaver, a SRAM RED chain, and a PG-1170 cassette, on original 2014 SRAM Force 22 cranks/chainrings. 




> I ride on real roads, I ride year round. I ride in the rain. I ride in the winter. I ride on salt covered roads. I don't take meticulous care. My chain rarely looks shiny.
> And I get over 5,000mi. I put a new chain on my old cassette and it shifts perfect.
> 
> 
> ...


So, again, in your "expert" experience and with your 5K mile chains, what would you supposed is wrong... esp when much of the experts seem to agree on a "2K Mile Rule" regarding chains.


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

Srode said:


> So you are saying that if it was on the bike with a load on it the new unused chain would show less wear? Please explain how that would happen.......


It's not really about less or more wear, it's about not having the chain being installed being an inaccurate why to measure chain stretch. The chain needs to be installed in order to get an accurate reading - the CC-2 is designed on that principal. I guess one option, other than installing it, first, would be to hang it from a nail or peg hook so the entire weight of the chain hangs down towards the ground without touching, and then using the CC-2 on the hanging chain (near the top, where load is greatest).


----------



## Srode (Aug 19, 2012)

RidleyX said:


> So, what do you suppose that I'm "doing wrong?" Btw, you never mentioned what chain you're using, what lube you're using, or what cassette you're using, either. I've mentioned the use of DuPont Chainsaver, a SRAM RED chain, and a PG-1170 cassette, on original 2014 SRAM Force 22 cranks/chainrings.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Happy to help with suggestions but really need to know more about what you are doing now. With what we have so far, for starter's I would probably switch chain lubes. I hadn't heard of Dupont Chain Saver before you post, don't know anyone who uses that but given the results you are seeing I would say it's not working for you with the rest of your maintenance regimen. 

How often are you lubing your chain and what is the thing that triggers you to apply lube? How are you cleaning your chain and how often? How many miles are on your chain rings would you guess?

I use Ultegra cassettes for the most part, one bike has a Dura Ace, my road bikes have Dura Ace chains and my gravel bike and trainer bike have Ultegra Chains. My Chain Lube is Chain L, I wipe the chain rarely and apply lube about every 700 miles I would guess. When I can hear a bit more chain noise I lube it. I get probably 8000 miles on average out of a chain with the exception of my gravel bike which get's changed annually (when I'm doing Gravel rides, this year hasn't been one of those with events being cancelled).


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

Lombard said:


> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to velodog again.



You see... posting ish like that only causes to degrade the conversation further, meanwhile you point at me as the one "attacking" everyone. I'm merely defending my position, and then jerks come in and take pot shots. I mean, why even have a thread if all you're going to do is hurl insults at anyone that posts anything that doesn't 100% agree with your position? I mean, you get what you give...


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

Srode said:


> Happy to help with suggestions but really need to know more about what you are doing now. With what we have so far, for starter's I would probably switch chain lubes. I hadn't heard of Dupont Chain Saver before you post, don't know anyone who uses that but given the results you are seeing I would say it's not working for you with the rest of your maintenance regimen.
> 
> How often are you lubing your chain and what is the thing that triggers you to apply lube? How are you cleaning your chain and how often? How many miles are on your chain rings would you guess?


Welp, Chainsaver was actually rated as one of the best lubes... and it's price per oz vs the squirt bottle wax stuff can't be beat. The fact that other sites are stating things such as a 2K Mile Rule makes me think that my results aren't all that out of line... none the less, I did purchase an entire new Force 22 crankset (with new rings, of course) as I'm a bit suspicious of some of the wear on the rings... I've had the bike since 2014 and have put quite a bit of miles on it, and quite a bit of miles with the same chain. I also purchased a new GXP bottom bracket, so that's on my list for future maintenance. None the less, I'm really only riding on the big ring right now... never shifting the front derailleur. Most of the wear was on the small ring, so the big ring should be worn, but okay (ie - no "shark teeth" profiles).


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

RidleyX said:


> So, what do you suppose that I'm "doing wrong?"


Again.... Simple... you're not using 'the best' lube.




> Btw, you never mentioned what chain you're using, what lube you're using, or what cassette you're using, either. I've mentioned the use of DuPont Chainsaver, a SRAM RED chain, and a PG-1170 cassette, on original 2014 SRAM Force 22 cranks/chainrings.


Chain-L lube. Dura-Ace. Ultegra. Sram. Been using it for years on all sorts of equipment.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

RidleyX said:


> Welp, Chainsaver was actually rated as one of the best lubes...


Rated the best? By who? What makes it the best? Did someone say it's 1watt faster?


----------



## duriel (Oct 10, 2013)

RidleyX said:


> experts seem to agree on a "2K Mile Rule" regarding chains.


What?

He is having poor shifting, I don't think it's his chain, ... it's his mechanic.


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

Srode said:


> I use Ultegra cassettes for the most part, one bike has a Dura Ace, my road bikes have Dura Ace chains and my gravel bike and trainer bike have Ultegra Chains. My Chain Lube is Chain L, I wipe the chain rarely and apply lube about every 700 miles I would guess. When I can hear a bit more chain noise I lube it. I get probably 8000 miles on average out of a chain with the exception of my gravel bike which get's changed annually (when I'm doing Gravel rides, this year hasn't been one of those with events being cancelled).


Hmmm, Dura Ace uses titanium cogs on their cassettes. Do you have full Dura on your Dura bike? It's definitely not a true apples to apples with Shimano Di2 vs SRAM Force mechanical, but I've read tests on Shimano, Campy, and SRAM chains, and Shimano Ultegra level and Dura level chains scored the overall best... except in durability. I believe a Wipperman may have scored best in durability tests. 

The above said, 8K miles on one chain is a lot... I live in PA, so, with a full time job, it's fairly hard to do more than 600 miles a month. How many miles are you riding a week/month/year - what state do you live in? 

Also, riding in gravel and getting 8K miles on a chain would be particularly amazing. I'm not finding any bike mechanics or published articles ANYWHERE saying that's the norm. Have you read any published accounts where a Dura chain is expected to get 8K miles?


----------



## duriel (Oct 10, 2013)

RidleyX said:


> riding in gravel


This and his mechanic!


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

tlg said:


> Rated the best? By who? What makes it the best? Did someone say it's 1watt faster?



https://www.friction-facts.com/bikes/gears/best-bike-chain-lube/

2. DuPont Teflon Bicycle Chain LubeDuPont Teflon Bicycle Chain Lube is a wax-based chain lube with Teflon in the side. As stated earlier, Teflon is a grease component in dry lubes that helps their performance in dry and dusty conditions. When the oil is wax-based, it merely means that it is pretty much oily and as such, can be called a wet lube.
Having these two properties in one lubricant means it can be used in a multitude of applications — this lubricant one of the best bike chain lubes you can purchase. The lube is thermally stable and as such, can be used in off-road bikes.
DuPont Teflon Bicycle Chain Lube is particularly formulated for cables and chains that are used in wet or high contamination environments. The lube goes on wet and penetrates frictional surfaces effectively due to the Teflon wax film, making it one of the best oil for bicycle chains. This film will not dirt, grit, grass, and other contaminants.
This lube is not only practical but also self-cleaning. It has, among others, multiple applications such as in motorcycles, sliding tracks, chain-driven lawn, etc. it is formulated to meet your every need.
Pros:

Self-cleaning; doesn’t require another chain cleaning agent
It provides thermally stable allowance between moving parts
It protects against rust and corrosion of the chain
Stays on and on the chain and would not fling off when riding in very high speed
It is safe for O-Rings
No silicon contents
Can be used even in dry and sandy road conditions
Comes in a squeeze bottle
Better chain’s life span, about five times longer
Has a very high boiling point
Has resistance to water
It is multifunctional
Non-staining
Very easy to apply
Cons:

The tube might keep falling off


----------



## Srode (Aug 19, 2012)

RidleyX said:


> Welp, Chainsaver was actually rated as one of the best lubes... and it's price per oz vs the squirt bottle wax stuff can't be beat. The fact that other sites are stating things such as a 2K Mile Rule makes me think that my results aren't all that out of line... none the less, I did purchase an entire new Force 22 crankset (with new rings, of course) as I'm a bit suspicious of some of the wear on the rings... I've had the bike since 2014 and have put quite a bit of miles on it, and quite a bit of miles with the same chain. I also purchased a new GXP bottom bracket, so that's on my list for future maintenance. None the less, I'm really only riding on the big ring right now... never shifting the front derailleur. Most of the wear was on the small ring, so the big ring should be worn, but okay (ie - no "shark teeth" profiles).


You didn't answer my questions about how you are doing maintenance. If you really want help, those are a good starting point. On your lube choice, I already provided input - change it to something more cyclists are using, never heard of it and don't know anyone using it. I generally consider recommendations from sites like you posted suspect credibility as someone can pay for an endorsement. Actual results matter, and your's pretty much suck IMHO - not being contrary just saying, you are doing something seriously wrong to only have a chain last 2000 miles in the environment you described. Where are you reading 2000 miles is normal chain life?


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

RidleyX said:


> https://www.friction-facts.com/bikes/gears/best-bike-chain-lube/


Friction facts. 

Lets see... what do they say.
*"You probably have experienced a case where the chain of your bike gets removed or breaks while in motion. As common as this incidence might be, if it occurs while riding at high speed, it might cause a fatal accident."* 

WTF? NO... just... NO! End... Full stop. 

Like I said... marketing gimmicks. Nothing in that page of garbage says why that lube is the best.

Did you notice every item on that page has *CHECK THE CHEAPEST PRICE NOW!*
Those are kickback links with codes so Friction Facts gets $$$ if you click and buy.

amazon.com/DuPont-Chain-Saver-Self-Cleaning-Lubricant-11-Ounce/dp/B008S7OG52/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ascsub=&cv_ct_id=amzn1.osp.1a37d1b1-8165-4fee-b8a7-8896d9a67cc0&cv_ct_pg=search&cv_ct_wn=osp-search&keywords=Best%20Bike%20Chain%20Lube&pd_rd_i=B001B0VDC2&pd_rd_r=5be0add9-4835-4059-96cd-e95cce831f7b&pd_rd_w=NPP9D&pd_rd_wg=BlmQc&pf_rd_p=53eff971-6e12-4016-9864-b6dfd929b2b3&pf_rd_r=WYYJ9HT5VEK7D590MGN0&qid=1569648190&s=gateway&th=1&linkCode=sl1&tag=ffacts-20&linkId=56f007db7640c9335d5b02c426c7f99d&language=en_US


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

duriel said:


> This and his mechanic!


Oh my.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Srode said:


> On your lube choice, I already provided input - change it to something more cyclists are using, never heard of it and don't know anyone using it.


Ditto, never heard of it. Never heard of anyone using it. It it were so great, we'd have heard of it.

Chain lube is probably one of the most discussed topics on RBR. Looking back over the past decade Dupont Chain-Saver has only been brought up a couple times. No rave reviews.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

RidleyX said:


> https://www.friction-facts.com/bikes/gears/best-bike-chain-lube/
> 
> 2. DuPont Teflon Bicycle Chain LubeDuPont Teflon Bicycle Chain Lube is a wax-based chain lube with Teflon in the side. As stated earlier, Teflon is a grease component in dry lubes that helps their performance in dry and dusty conditions. When the oil is wax-based, it merely means that it is pretty much oily and as such, can be called a wet lube.
> Having these two properties in one lubricant means it can be used in a multitude of applications — this lubricant one of the best bike chain lubes you can purchase. The lube is thermally stable and as such, can be used in off-road bikes.
> ...


love all the fractured English used in this blurb...

and where are the O-rings in a bike chain and wtf is a 'chain-driven lawn'...? lol


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Oxtox said:


> love all the fractured English used in this blurb...
> 
> and where are the O-rings in a bike chain and wtf is a 'chain-driven lawn'...? lol


A poor copy/paste job. On Amazon it says "Chain-Saver is perfect for motorcycles, dirt bikes, ATVs, go-karts, bicycles and any chain-driven lawn and garden equipment. " 


But... you should trust Friction Facts. Their attention to detail is impeccable.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

RidleyX said:


> https://www.friction-facts.com/bikes/gears/best-bike-chain-lube/
> 
> *2. DuPont Teflon Bicycle Chain Lube*
> 
> ...


The points I have highlighted are proof the writer has no clue. Let's examine:



*It provides thermally stable allowance between moving parts.*
WTF. We're not talking about engine parts here, we're talking about a bicycle chain! How much heat do you think is created when pedaling a bicycle?



*Stays on and on the chain and would not fling off when riding in very high speed*
Huh?? Is this point for the user who forgets to wipe his chain after application??



*Has a very high boiling point*
For those really hot sultry days, eh?


And my favorite:



*Better chain’s life span, about five times longer*

Five times longer than what? A bare chain? One fifth of 2,300 miles is 460 miles. My lube intervals are every 500 miles. Unless you clean all of the factory lube out of the chain before you install it, you will get more than 460 miles out of a chain.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

RidleyX said:


> Just wanted to say, first off - nice to meet you. Second, I'm actually a newer convert to the "2k mile rule." I honestly do a lot of my own work on cars and bikes, and am naturally suspicious of mechanics - but respect their knowledge (it's their goodfaith that i'll often question). That said, I rode my new Ridley Noah RS since about mid-2014 until one ride into 2020... on the same chain and cassette. A female friend of mine that has a bike shop mechanic friend, told her that she needed a new cassette and chain. I was like, "oh come on," I've never changed my chain or cassette, yet... but at the same time, my shifting wasn't all that great (lot's of missed gears, and just less-than-smooth shifting).
> 
> I didn't even own a chain checking tool at the time, but I had decided at the beginning of the season that I would re-cable the bike's internal cabling, install new bar tape, install new jockey wheels, and install a new SRAM RED chain + SRAM PG-1170 cassette. It was only after all of this work (the internal cabling was a royal pain) that I started to learn more about chain wear and normal replacement intervals.


If you didn't change your cables and housings for 6 years, I am guessing that was the main cause of your poor shifting. Housings wear and become rough inside. If your cables were galvanized, they oxidized and became rough. Both of these cause extra friction.

I don't know how many miles you ride in 6 years, but you did say you ride a lot of miles. So how long were your riding before you started to notice poor shifting?




RidleyX said:


> I decided that I needed a good chain checker, as well, and got a decent deal on a new CC-2, and that's when I realized my chain was ALREADY worn out. Also, since SRAM's non-RED chains are so inexpensive (only about $20), there just didn't seem to be much reason NOT to replace them when there was evidence of excessive stretch. Especially with modern quick links... it just made sense to me to not mess around with new chain swaps.


Hmmm. So let's do some math word problems........

At $20 per chain and $70 per SRAM PG1170 11-speed cassette, if I replace my chain every 2,000 miles and my cassette lasts for 20,000 miles, at the end of 20,000 miles, that comes to..... *$270*.

If I replace my chain every 5,000 miles and my cassette last for only 10,000 miles, at the end of 20,000 miles, that comes to..... *$220

*Just some food for thought. Since tlg gets 15,000 miles out of his cassettes, even if you were able to get twice that mileage out of your cassette, you would not make up the cost of replacing chains more often.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Lombard said:


> The points I have highlighted are proof the writer has no clue.


Well... the writer is DuPont.

DuPont™ Chain-Saver with Teflon® Fluoropolymer For Chain-Driven Vehicles

I imagine they have a clue. The problem is this is NOT a bicycle chain lube. It's a generic multipurpose lube. Like WD-40.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

tlg said:


> Well... the writer is DuPont.
> 
> DuPont™ Chain-Saver with Teflon® Fluoropolymer For Chain-Driven Vehicles
> 
> I imagine they have a clue. The problem is this is NOT a bicycle chain lube. It's a generic multipurpose lube. Like WD-40.


And as we know, WD-40 is not a lubricant.


----------



## xxl (Mar 19, 2002)

RidleyX said:


> ...much of the experts seem to agree on a "2K Mile Rule" regarding chains.


Q: About this, does the "2K Mile Rule," does that include the "pre-wear" (~25%) built into the chain by the manufacturer, or does the "wear clock" start only after the chain in mounted and operational?

(P. S. Ignore the h8erz.)


----------



## MDM (Jun 10, 2020)

Lombard said:


> And as we know, WD-40 is not a lubricant.


Oh boy, here we go again...


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

Srode said:


> You didn't answer my questions about how you are doing maintenance. If you really want help, those are a good starting point. On your lube choice, I already provided input - change it to something more cyclists are using, never heard of it and don't know anyone using it. I generally consider recommendations from sites like you posted suspect credibility as someone can pay for an endorsement. Actual results matter, and your's pretty much suck IMHO - not being contrary just saying, you are doing something seriously wrong to only have a chain last 2000 miles in the environment you described. Where are you reading 2000 miles is normal chain life?


I'm using a high quality lube, and really don't think that's the reason at all. I actually use a couple different lubes, as well, so, it's not even just one lube. The more I read on the subject, the more I'm thinking it could be the fact that I always ride in the big ring (which is a bigger lever vs the small ring, placing more torque on the chain) and cross-chaining on the big ring with the 26 tooth large/low gear in the rear. 

None, the less, remember, I started this out by saying what I had learned... not asking for help. I'm okay, and have been okay, with replacing a $20 chain every 2k miles. Given the cost of other bike products, $20 every 2K miles is a drop in the bucket.


See below for one of the quotes on changing chains every approx 2K miles:


> Replacing your chain regularly can prolong the life of your drivetrain.* Most mechanics agree that you should replace your chain about every 2,000 to 3,000 miles, depending on your riding style. *Many Tour De France riders wear out two or even three chains on their primary bike over the course of the three-week race.
> 
> The easiest way to determine if you need a new chain is to use a chain-checker, which measures how badly your current chain has stretched. Although a properly maintained chain can technically last nearly 8,000 miles, it becomes much less efficient as it wears and elongates, says Jason Smith of Colorado-based research firm Friction Facts, with two watts of lost power for every one percent of elongation.
> 
> ...


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

xxl said:


> Q: About this, does the "2K Mile Rule," does that include the "pre-wear" (~25%) built into the chain by the manufacturer, or does the "wear clock" start only after the chain in mounted and operational?
> 
> (P. S. Ignore the h8erz.)



YES - although, the built-in slack otherwise measured as "wear" on a chain checker, should probably be closer to 10 - 20% of lifespan than a full quarter of life span, usually. As was pointed out, though, the manufacturers deliberately build in slack/slop because tolerances that are too tight slow the chain down. If anyone disagrees with that, just take a hub with cup and cap bearings and torque down the outside axle bolts to 40 ft lbs and see how the wheel spins. None the less, the built in slop does definitely contribute to the more limited lifetime of the chain.


----------



## duriel (Oct 10, 2013)

RidleyX said:


> (which is a bigger lever vs the small ring, placing more torque on the chain)


The load on the chain is greater in the small ring.

Recommendations:
Change to a different lube, throw that stuff away. 
Change mechanics.
Ride in the little ring.


----------



## Srode (Aug 19, 2012)

RidleyX said:


> Hmmm, Dura Ace uses titanium cogs on their cassettes. Do you have full Dura on your Dura bike? It's definitely not a true apples to apples with Shimano Di2 vs SRAM Force mechanical, but I've read tests on Shimano, Campy, and SRAM chains, and Shimano Ultegra level and Dura level chains scored the overall best... except in durability. I believe a Wipperman may have scored best in durability tests.
> 
> The above said, 8K miles on one chain is a lot... I live in PA, so, with a full time job, it's fairly hard to do more than 600 miles a month. How many miles are you riding a week/month/year - what state do you live in?
> 
> Also, riding in gravel and getting 8K miles on a chain would be particularly amazing. I'm not finding any bike mechanics or published articles ANYWHERE saying that's the norm. Have you read any published accounts where a Dura chain is expected to get 8K miles?


Actually, my Dura Ace groupset bike has an Ultegra cassette, and my other road bike which is an Ultegra Groupset has the Dura Ace Cassette. The later is my climbing bike and the Dura Ace 11/28 is quite a bit lighter than the Ultegra, but it does also have a Dura Ace Chain. 

I live in Ohio, and ride about 9000 miles a year typically, and my biggest month this year was just over 1000 miles. I do ultra endurance events so I put in lots of miles as a prep for them. 

I don't use Dura Ace chains necessarily because of their life but because they are a hair more efficient than Ultegra in tests. The life I get out of a chain isn't based on any recommendations, its based on wear. Chains get elongated due to the outer side plates wearing which also makes a chain less stiff laterally and consequently, depending on how the drive chain is set up can start shifting sloppy. When I change chains on road bikes around 8000ish miles, its rarely because of elongation, it's more because they get noisey and they annoy me. The rollers and pins wear making them noisier I would guess, but roller and pin wear doesn't cause effective chain pitch to change. that's the outer plates wearing at their on the pins where they move. 

A gravel or mountain bike chain certainly won't last anywhere near as long as a road bike due to the dirt getting kicked up and wearing down the chain. On my gravel bikes, they get lubed about every 50 to 60 miles in an event, and by then it's pretty normal for them to be squeaking they are so dirty. When just casually riding on trails, they are wiped and lubed every time I go out. Definitely can't be compared to a road bike, totally different situation.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

RidleyX said:


> I'm using a high quality lube, and really don't think that's the reason at all. I actually use a couple different lubes, as well, so, it's not even just one lube. The more I read on the subject, the more I'm thinking it could be the fact that I always ride in the big ring (which is a bigger lever vs the small ring, placing more torque on the chain) and cross-chaining on the big ring with the 26 tooth large/low gear in the rear.


Nope. Large ring spreads the load over more teeth and therefore puts less stress on individual chain links.

And all modern drivetrains are designed to work in all gear combos unlike the old days where small/small and large/large combos were advised to avoid.

It's the lube(s). "Dry" wax lubes simply do not lubricate as well as "wet" oil based lubes.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

RidleyX said:


> You see... posting ish like that only causes to degrade the conversation further, meanwhile you point at me as the one "attacking" everyone. I'm merely defending my position, and then jerks come in and take pot shots. I mean, why even have a thread if all you're going to do is hurl insults at anyone that posts anything that doesn't 100% agree with your position? I mean, you get what you give...


Oh come now. I wasn't even the one who made the remark. I was just the enabler.  Nor was I the meanie who hit you with negative rep. Also keep in mind that Velodog did not even directly insult you. He simply implied that what you said was "a load of BS". 

But hey, if you put up misinformation, you shouldn't get butt hurt when we call you out.


----------



## xxl (Mar 19, 2002)

RidleyX said:


> YES - although, the built-in slack otherwise measured as "wear" on a chain checker, should probably be closer to 10 - 20% of lifespan than a full quarter of life span, usually. As was pointed out, though, the manufacturers deliberately build in slack/slop because tolerances that are too tight slow the chain down. If anyone disagrees with that, just take a hub with cup and cap bearings and torque down the outside axle bolts to 40 ft lbs and see how the wheel spins. None the less, the built in slop does definitely contribute to the more limited lifetime of the chain.


"Yes" to the "wear clock" starting when the chain is actually mounted, or right out of the box?

I'm not sure I understand your comment about chain manufacturers deliberately building in slack/slop (and I'm no engineer, so bear with me); why wouldn't they just design a chain with more precision, vs. having to build in slack/slop?


----------



## Srode (Aug 19, 2012)

xxl said:


> "Yes" to the "wear clock" starting when the chain is actually mounted, or right out of the box?
> 
> I'm not sure I understand your comment about chain manufacturers deliberately building in slack/slop (and I'm no engineer, so bear with me); why wouldn't they just design a chain with more precision, vs. having to build in slack/slop?


There isn't deliberate slack built into a bicycle chain, the pitch is 0.5 inches and a new chain will measure spot on 12 inches over for the distance between 25 pins center to center which is why the 12 inch ruler works well for measuring elongation due to pin wear at the joints. The park tool and all the others measure inside roller to roller distance, and the rollers must have some space between the inside of the roller and the pin or it wouldn't turn, and couldn't get any lubrication inside of them to prevent wear. The tools press the roller against the pin in opposite directions widening the gap somewhat and it looks like the chain is longer than spec when it's not, the tool is just showing the tollerences between the pin and roller. 

Wear at the joints is what causes chain elongation, not roller to pin wear. As long as the rollers are rolling smoothly in the pins, they shouldn't cause accelerated wear, but elongation will because the chain becomes a different pitch than the cogs on the cassette and ring set so the rollers aren't sitting all the way down in the cogs and distributing the load as well, instead the load increasingly moves to the cog(s) closest to the infeed of the chain.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

xxl said:


> "Yes" to the "wear clock" starting when the chain is actually mounted, or right out of the box?
> 
> I'm not sure I understand your comment about chain manufacturers deliberately building in slack/slop (and I'm no engineer


I am. And....don't bother. It's more snakeoil from Cermicspeed. No.... manufacturers are not building in slack/slop. That's nuts.
"Lightning fast chains"  They're literally talking about 1w. 

This is what he's basing that on.
_So what makes a chain fast? The brief answer is: larger gaps between the various components, allowing lubricant to travel freely and do its job while reducing the sheer amount of friction between the various chain parts. Examples of this are seen with KMC and Shimano chains, which are both known to show minor amounts of roller-based wear when new, and according to CeramicSpeed, are lightning-fast, too.

This is explained by the Dura-Ace chain sample coming out of the box with a measured .12mm “wear” on the KMC digital chain checker, whereas the batch of Ultegra chains started at .05/.06mm measurable “wear”. Keep in mind that Kerin’s test considers .5mm to be worn out, and so .12mm is almost a quarter of the allowable wear allowance. Kerin believes this is a batch variance, and that it’s quite possible (even likely) the Dura-Ace chain can offer improved durability._​There's much more to it than "larger gaps". The best performing chains are made with better materials. Better heat treatment. Better chrome/nickle plating. Better low friction coatings. Any liquid lube can easily flow into the tiniest of gaps. 

Bear in mind, these tests are all geared towards showcasing submersed wax lubes. Which have merit for elite racers. But it's tedious and time consuming. But these are NOT the same as spray on/drip on wax lubes.... which suck.

Submerged wax lubed chains test with lower 'friction' than oil based. But yet they always wear out faster. How can that be? Cearly there is more friction in them. The increase 'friction' in an oil lubed chain comes from the 'stiction' of the oil between all the plates and rollers. This "friction" isn't causing wear. If you could somehow keep the oil only at the pin/roller, an oil lubed chain would have significantly lower friction. A wax will never ever perform better at the high pressure point between the roller and bearing. You would NEVER see a wax lube in a sealed ball bearing. 

These are the exact same issues we see when comparing ceramic bearings to steel bearings. Ceramic bearings only test with lower watts because they use low contact seals thinner oils. If you put low contact seals and light oil in a quality steel bearings, they perform virtually identical. But ceramic bearings wear faster and after a short time have higher friction than steel bearings.

If you want to save a watt or two, perform more maintenance, and wear out parts faster, go with wax lubes and ceramic bearings.
If you don't care about a watt or two, and want your parts to last longer, go with oil lubes and steel bearings.


----------



## xxl (Mar 19, 2002)

Srode said:


> There isn't deliberate slack built into a bicycle chain, the pitch is 0.5 inches and a new chain will measure spot on 12 inches over for the distance between 25 pins center to center which is why the 12 inch ruler works well for measuring elongation due to pin wear at the joints. The park tool and all the others measure inside roller to roller distance, and the rollers must have some space between the inside of the roller and the pin or it wouldn't turn, and couldn't get any lubrication inside of them to prevent wear. The tools press the roller against the pin in opposite directions widening the gap somewhat and it looks like the chain is longer than spec when it's not, the tool is just showing the tollerences between the pin and roller.
> 
> Wear at the joints is what causes chain elongation, not roller to pin wear. As long as the rollers are rolling smoothly in the pins, they shouldn't cause accelerated wear, but elongation will because the chain becomes a different pitch than the cogs on the cassette and ring set so the rollers aren't sitting all the way down in the cogs and distributing the load as well, instead the load increasingly moves to the cog(s) closest to the infeed of the chain.


But if deliberate slack/slop_ isn't _built into the chain, how will it accommodate the drive train, particularly if they have to figure on the additional "distance" of a film of lubrication between parts?

And your point about how the lubrication brings up another point: Is it possible that a more viscous lube could be too "thick" for the slack/slop tolerances?


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

xxl said:


> But if deliberate slack/slop_ isn't _built into the chain, how will it accommodate the drive train, particularly if they have to figure on the additional "distance" of a film of lubrication between parts?


These are called "clearances" in engineering terms. Yes these are built in... to everything. There is no 'extra' slack/slop built in to 'speed the chain up'. That's silly.



> And your point about how the lubrication brings up another point: Is it possible that a more viscous lube could be too "thick" for the slack/slop tolerances?


No. Impossible. Liquid will seep into even a 'line to line" fit. 
Perhaps if you have a thick lube and wiped it off immediately after applying it, it won't get to where it needs to. But if you let it 'soak' for a couple hours, it will absolutely wick into every nook and cranny.


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

duriel said:


> The load on the chain is greater in the small ring.
> 
> Recommendations:
> Change to a different lube, throw that stuff away.
> ...



No, I'm referring to the load/torque at the rear cogs. It's not just me stating this, it was in the article that talked about chain stretch... it's increased when riders use larger gears (more pedaling force vs higher cadence). The large ring allows you to exert even more pedaling force/leverage against the chain at the rear cogs.


----------



## Srode (Aug 19, 2012)

xxl said:


> But if deliberate slack/slop_ isn't _built into the chain, how will it accommodate the drive train, particularly if they have to figure on the additional "distance" of a film of lubrication between parts?
> 
> And your point about how the lubrication brings up another point: Is it possible that a more viscous lube could be too "thick" for the slack/slop tolerances?


The tolerances on the rollers to pin must accommodate both the need for the lubrication and a bit of drive train wear. That tolerance will only go so far though, a cassette / rings with too much wear don't work well with new chains as we've seen in posts here on occasion I think. 

To thick could be a problem for a couple reason's. You have to get it inside the roller which thicker lubes wouldn't do very well, unless they are thinned with a volatile solvent that flashes off fairly quickly, but most are thinned like that so they work. 

Once you can get it in between the roller and the pin there's potential going to lower the drivetrain efficiency due to the inherent friction of the lube. There's other variables besides viscosity that can effect that friction loss though, but in general lower viscosity means better efficiency as long as the film between the parts is maintained, and thats why modern high efficiency engines use super low viscosity oil as compared to a couple decades ago. (0W-20 vs 10W40).


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

tlg said:


> If you want to save a watt or two, perform more maintenance, and wear out parts faster, go with wax lubes and ceramic bearings.
> If you don't care about a watt or two, and want your parts to last longer, go with oil lubes and steel bearings.


Better yet, if you are really concerned with saving a watt or two, losing a pound or two off the engine will make a far greater difference. :idea:


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

RidleyX said:


> No, I'm referring to the load/torque at the rear cogs. It's not just me stating this, it was in the article that talked about chain stretch... it's increased when riders use larger gears (more pedaling force vs higher cadence). The large ring allows you to exert even more pedaling force/leverage against the chain at the rear cogs.


How would this be the case? If you are using the large ring, you are also using larger cogs in the cassette if your objective is to achieve the same gear inches. Overall, a larger/larger combo would result in LESS wear, not more since you are spreading the overall load over more teeth.


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

xxl said:


> "Yes" to the "wear clock" starting when the chain is actually mounted, or right out of the box?
> 
> I'm not sure I understand your comment about chain manufacturers deliberately building in slack/slop (and I'm no engineer, so bear with me); why wouldn't they just design a chain with more precision, vs. having to build in slack/slop?



I believe TLG answered this one fairly well, and that was one of the quotes that I was referencing in previous posts where Ultegra and Dura Ace (among others) were examined on chain checkers (such as KMC's digital dedicated bike chain caliper). Interestingly the KMC had issues with SRAM chains as there were apparently difference in the rollers. I don't recall the entire reasoning, but it should be in the article... the KMC was determined to be accurate with respect to the Shimano chains, though. 

Also, yes, Shimano's Made in Japan stuff would only have slack in the chain (yes, "excess tolerance" if you prefer) if Shimano wanted it there. Although, it is interesting that one of the Dura Ace chains had significantly more slack than the Ultegra chain and the author of the article exclaimed that he believed that it was likely a manufacturing lot exception, but without examining more Dura Ace chains, I wouldn't be so sure. Shimano's Ultegra is known for high quality, light weight, and durability. Dura Ace has more of a reputation of extremely high quality finished, precision, and lightest weight, but lightest weight sometimes at the expense of durability. Given Shimano's reputation for quality, esp among its Made in Japan stuff, and esp on Dura Ace products, I'd find it surprising that Shimano didn't design that much slack into the Dura chain to make the chain faster.... but ultimately, less durable. 

A good question that wasn't resolved in those well-written articles was what point does a particular chain run fastest and most efficient during it's wear cycle? In other words, does a chain with .25% wear run faster than a chain with only .05% wear... and how about a chain with .40% wear vs .25% wear? Where is the Wear sweet spot?


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

Lombard said:


> How would this be the case? If you are using the large ring, you are also using larger cogs in the cassette if your objective is to achieve the same gear inches. Overall, a larger/larger combo would result in LESS wear, not more since you are spreading the overall load over more teeth.


Bigger levers create more force. Higher gear ratios create more force/pressure on the chain vs spinning around in first gear on the smallest chainwheel.



> The 2,000-Mile RuleTo avoid this accelerated wear of your cassette and chainrings, a general rule of thumb is to replace your bike’s chain every 2,000 miles. Mind you, this is just a starting point. No two chains will wear at exactly the same rate because no two riders treat their chains the same.
> 
> If you’re the type who spins easy gears, meticulously cleans and lubes the chain after every ride, never rides in the rain, and weighs as much as a WorldTour climbing specialist, your chain is likely to last longer than 2,000 miles. *But if you love to push big gears*, ride rain or shine all the time, and don’t even own shop rags, *getting over 2,000 miles out of your chain is likely a pipe dream.*


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Lombard said:


> Oh come now. I wasn't even the one who made the remark. I was just the enabler.  Nor was I the meanie who hit you with negative rep. Also keep in mind that Velodog did not even directly insult you. He simply implied that what you said was "a load of BS".
> 
> But hey, if you put up misinformation, you shouldn't get butt hurt when we call you out.


Whether I insulted him or not doesn't matter as he neg-reped me for my comment, so he probably feels he rectified things now.


----------



## duriel (Oct 10, 2013)

RidleyX said:


> I always ride in the big ring (which is a bigger lever vs the small ring, placing more torque on the chain)


Make up your mind, you said chain. The tension on the chain is greater when in the small ring.

Tlg explains why there is less wear on the bigger chainring/cogs.

Your chain is wearing out because:
you're gravel riding
you're using crappy lube

Give it up.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

RidleyX said:


> Bigger levers create more force. Higher gear ratios create more force/pressure on the chain vs spinning around in first gear on the smallest chainwheel.


You did not say higher gear ratios, you said big ring, so I assumed you meant trying to achieve the same gear ratio while in the big ring vs. small ring.

So yes, it is true that being a masher will be harder on a chain than being a spinner - sort of like lugging an engine vs. revving it. Are you a masher?


----------



## duriel (Oct 10, 2013)

On the big/little ring debacle....
If you're in the big ring the teeth wear less than in the small ring, that means you're in a bigger ring in the back, which would reduce the wear on both the chainring & cassette.
But I don't think that being in the big or small ring has much effect on chain wear, unless you are severely cross chained and really mashing. One would never want to jump a cog or drop the chain in that situation, you could flip. ... or worse.


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

Lombard said:


> Oh come now. I wasn't even the one who made the remark. I was just the enabler.  Nor was I the meanie who hit you with negative rep. Also keep in mind that Velodog did not even directly insult you. He simply implied that what you said was "a load of BS".
> 
> But hey, if you put up misinformation, you shouldn't get butt hurt when we call you out.


The guy that drives the getaway car gets just as much time as the guy that robs the bank...

Also, there was no misinformation in any of my posts. You may be confusing my posts with your responses. Understandable.

Finally, just a note on the negative rep - I didn't even know it was an option on this platform until I saw mines was in red. So, I probably wouldn't have bothered if it wasn't for the fact that people that seemed to be more butt hurt than I took the time to negative rep me.


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

Srode said:


> Actually, my Dura Ace groupset bike has an Ultegra cassette, and my other road bike which is an Ultegra Groupset has the Dura Ace Cassette. The later is my climbing bike and the Dura Ace 11/28 is quite a bit lighter than the Ultegra, but it does also have a Dura Ace Chain.
> 
> I live in Ohio, and ride about 9000 miles a year typically, and my biggest month this year was just over 1000 miles. I do ultra endurance events so I put in lots of miles as a prep for them.
> 
> ...



Just read this, thanks. I'm amazed that you're getting 9K in a year living in Ohio. Although, the flat plains of OH vs the hills where I live in PA are something to behold. It's not as easy road riding around here, and quite honestly, it's dangerous - I've moved most all of my biking to the trails and parks. 

I am amazed that you're getting that much mileage out of a chain, though. Have you used your CC-2 on a Dura Ace chain (installed) with 8K miles on it? If so, what was the CC-2's recorded stretch?


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

Lombard said:


> You did not say higher gear ratios, you said big ring, so I assumed you meant trying to achieve the same gear ratio while in the big ring vs. small ring.
> 
> So yes, it is true that being a masher will be harder on a chain than being a spinner - sort of like lugging an engine vs. revving it. Are you a masher?



I definitely ride in higher gears vs higher cadence. I've ridden the big ring the entire year, which, obviously, increases the gear ratio on each of the rear cogs, and places additional "cross chain" pressure when in the lowest gear, nearest the rear hub.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

RidleyX said:


> I definitely ride in higher gears vs higher cadence. I've ridden the big ring the entire year, which, obviously, increases the gear ratio on each of the rear cogs, and places additional "cross chain" pressure when in the lowest gear, nearest the rear hub.


As I said, all modern drivetrains are designed to work in all gear combos.

If you mash rather than spin, this may put more wear on your chain, but probably not as significant a difference in wear as in your chains vs. others here.

Sorry, I still think it's your lube.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Lombard said:


> As I said, all modern drivetrains are designed to work in all gear combos.
> 
> *If you mash rather than spin, this may put more wear on your chain*, but probably not as significant a difference in wear as in your chains vs. others here.
> 
> Sorry, I still think it's your lube.


It'll probably put more wear on the knees which are harder to lube than the chain.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

velodog said:


> It'll probably put more wear on the knees which are harder to lube than the chain.


And.............it's much easier to replace a chain than it is to replace knees!

So what kind of knee lube does everybody here use?


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

RidleyX said:


> vs the hills where I live in PA are something to behold.





RidleyX said:


> I've ridden the big ring the entire year


Where in PA? The hills are something to behold... yet you've only ridden the big ring the entire year?

You must be avoiding some good riding.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Lombard said:


> And.............it's much easier to replace a chain than it is to replace knees!
> 
> So what kind of knee lube does everybody here use?


I use "Burt's Bees"...

https://www.burtsbees.com/product/res-q-ointment/77599-00.html#

It's, shall I say, "The Bees Knees".


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

tlg said:


> Where in PA? The hills are something to behold... yet you've only ridden the big ring the entire year?
> 
> You must be avoiding some good riding.


Near Pittsburgh. There's nary a flat road anywhere near my home, but the trails are much safer and, obviously, less hilly. Other than extremely steep hills, I really haven't had any issue with any hills in the lowest cog on the big ring.


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

Lombard said:


> As I said, all modern drivetrains are designed to work in all gear combos.
> 
> If you mash rather than spin, this may put more wear on your chain, but probably not as significant a difference in wear as in your chains vs. others here.
> 
> Sorry, I still think it's your lube.



Here is an entire RBR thread on DuPont Chain-Saver... from 2011:


https://forums.roadbikereview.com/c...upontteflon-chain-saver-lubricant-268625.html


> Originally Posted by *lucky13*_I wanted info on DuPont Chain Saver so I went to DuPont website and followed the links to "contact us" and asked the difference between the two products. The response was from
> Bill Coleman
> 
> Director of Sales & Marketing
> ...



There's this, as well:

https://www.roadbikerider.com/make-bike-chain-last/


> <header class="entry-header" style="box-sizing: inherit; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">*Make Your Bike Chain Last 3 Times Longer With This Technique*
> 
> </header>
> 
> ...


----------



## Srode (Aug 19, 2012)

RidleyX said:


> There's this, as well:
> 
> https://www.roadbikerider.com/make-bike-chain-last/


So the author of the 2nd one says he has 3 chains that have gone 10,000 miles before his wear gauge says it needs to be changed using this Dupont lube, and that's in "sandy Florida"? And with that change frequency his cassette lasted 24,000 miles without any shifting issues. 
That's 5x the life you are getting out of your chain, correct? Wonder why the difference?


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

Srode said:


> So the author of the 2nd one says he has 3 chains that have gone 10,000 miles before his wear gauge says it needs to be changed using this Dupont lube, and that's in "sandy Florida"? And with that change frequency his cassette lasted 24,000 miles without any shifting issues.
> That's 5x the life you are getting out of your chain, correct? Wonder why the difference?



Yeah, I noticed. I still see the same articles that talk about 2K mile chain life. High quality cassettes are made to be light and relatively inexpensive - usually. RED cassettes and Dura Ace would be exceptions to the inexpensive part. I was thinking anyone riding THAT many miles, and 24K is a helluva lot, may be riding long stretches of road in the same gear, so maybe that explains some of the longevity (assuming his story is actually accurate). The writer also says he rides 1K miles per month on the "sandy west coast" of FL. I doubt sand is as much of an issue on metal as the salty air. None the less, he clearly swears by DuPont Chain-Saver. 

Also, even that Bicycling article stated you can get _as much as_ 8K miles on a chain if you ride in lower gear, render meticulous maintenance, and aren't a Clydesdale... but I haven't read ANY professional mechanics that recommended keeping a bike chain for 10K miles. I find it very hard to believe that a 10K mile chain is not stretched well over .50% over 10K miles of wear.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

RidleyX said:


> Here is an entire RBR thread on DuPont Chain-Saver... from 2011:
> 
> 
> https://forums.roadbikereview.com/c...upontteflon-chain-saver-lubricant-268625.html
> ...


Honestly, what does all this prove? One poster in that first thread touted this product.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

RidleyX said:


> Here is an entire RBR thread on DuPont Chain-Saver... from 2011:
> 
> 
> https://forums.roadbikereview.com/c...upontteflon-chain-saver-lubricant-268625.html
> ]


A 9yr old thread with a bunch of people not knowing anything about it. 
Nobody is saying about how great it is.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

tlg said:


> A 9yr old thread with a bunch of people not knowing anything about it.
> Nobody is saying about how great it is.


Well to be fair, Early One said it "works great" but didn't elaborate other than to cut and paste the Dumont ad for it.

So it must be great because one guy in a 9-year old thread said so.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

routinely get more than 8K miles (measured using a steel ruler) from $30 KMC 10-spd chains...and the current DA cassette I'm using has at least 22.5K miles (not sure how many the previous owner put on it). shifting is smooth and trouble-free, so no plans to replace it anytime soon.

my 'meticulous' chain maint consists of wiping it down with a t-shirt after most rides. solvent never touches it and it only comes off the bike at replacement time.

sounds like the few riders getting only 2K miles are the outliers.


----------



## duriel (Oct 10, 2013)

so after all this we are down to ..... it's the mechanic?


----------



## JetSpeed (Nov 18, 2002)

Funny this thread popped-up. Last few days I've been looking at the latest lube trends on this link -------> https://cyclingtips.com/2018/03/fast-chain-lube-that-saves-you-money/. Good, but boring also.

I was a Prolink fan for many years, I just switched to Rock and Roll (wet) which should be delivered tomorrow. I also bought a proper Park chain cleaner and new to me degreaser instead of cleaning my chains with kerosene. IDK, bored around the house . . . .


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Lombard said:


> And as we know, WD-40 is not a lubricant.


I beg to differ. It's oil and solvents. Many chain lubes are...oil and solvents.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Srode said:


> Chains get elongated due to the outer side plates wearing which also makes a chain less stiff laterally



Nope...it's wear on the bushings (inner plates), rollers, and pins.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

cxwrench said:


> I beg to differ. It's oil and solvents. Many chain lubes are...oil and solvents.


Hmmm, just like my homebrew - oil and mineral sprits. I stand corrected!


----------



## xxl (Mar 19, 2002)

RidleyX said:


> I believe TLG answered this one fairly well, and that was one of the quotes that I was referencing in previous posts where Ultegra and Dura Ace (among others) were examined on chain checkers (such as KMC's digital dedicated bike chain caliper). Interestingly the KMC had issues with SRAM chains as there were apparently difference in the rollers. I don't recall the entire reasoning, but it should be in the article... the KMC was determined to be accurate with respect to the Shimano chains, though.
> 
> Also, yes, Shimano's Made in Japan stuff would only have slack in the chain (yes, "excess tolerance" if you prefer) if Shimano wanted it there. Although, it is interesting that one of the Dura Ace chains had significantly more slack than the Ultegra chain and the author of the article exclaimed that he believed that it was likely a manufacturing lot exception, but without examining more Dura Ace chains, I wouldn't be so sure. Shimano's Ultegra is known for high quality, light weight, and durability. Dura Ace has more of a reputation of extremely high quality finished, precision, and lightest weight, but lightest weight sometimes at the expense of durability. Given Shimano's reputation for quality, esp among its Made in Japan stuff, and esp on Dura Ace products, I'd find it surprising that Shimano didn't design that much slack into the Dura chain to make the chain faster.... but ultimately, less durable.
> 
> A good question that wasn't resolved in those well-written articles was what point does a particular chain run fastest and most efficient during it's wear cycle? In other words, does a chain with .25% wear run faster than a chain with only .05% wear... and how about a chain with .40% wear vs .25% wear? Where is the Wear sweet spot?


Who's TLG?

I'm still not clear on when you say the "wear clock" should start, if I'm using a Park chain checker (instead of a ruler) to measure wear. If I'm using a different brand of chain checker, such as the KMC digital dedicated bike chain caliper, do I need to adjust the wear clock to reflect the greater accuracy of the measuring device?

Also, and again forgive my unfamiliarity with technical terms, but if Shimano built in "excess tolerance," how would that differ from normal design tolerances?


----------



## xxl (Mar 19, 2002)

RidleyX said:


> Just read this, thanks. I'm amazed that you're getting 9K in a year living in Ohio. Although, the flat plains of OH vs the hills where I live in PA are something to behold. It's not as easy road riding around here, and quite honestly, it's dangerous - I've moved most all of my biking to the trails and parks.
> 
> I am amazed that you're getting that much mileage out of a chain, though. Have you used your CC-2 on a Dura Ace chain (installed) with 8K miles on it? If so, what was the CC-2's recorded stretch?


FWIW, Ohio has both flat plains (in the north), and serious hills (in the south).

FTR, flat plains have wind.


----------



## Srode (Aug 19, 2012)

RidleyX said:


> Just read this, thanks. I'm amazed that you're getting 9K in a year living in Ohio. Although, the flat plains of OH vs the hills where I live in PA are something to behold. It's not as easy road riding around here, and quite honestly, it's dangerous - I've moved most all of my biking to the trails and parks.
> 
> I am amazed that you're getting that much mileage out of a chain, though. Have you used your CC-2 on a Dura Ace chain (installed) with 8K miles on it? If so, what was the CC-2's recorded stretch?


I don't remember the last time I used the CC-2 on a chain before this discussion, and don't have any with more than 4000 on it right now and thats an Ultegra on my Gravel bike which unfortunately only has 1 gravel ride on it, but I'll check it out before DK200 this year if that's not canceled again, should be over 8000 by then since I use it with road tires for my training rides. With 4000 on it now, it reads the same as a new one so I don't expect too much change by 8000 but will see. 

We do have some decent hills here in the South where I live like XXL mentioned, but not as much as the parts of PA I'm familiar with. Where we go gravel riding we typically get 100 ft of climbing / mile, so definitely not flat.


----------



## jnbrown (Dec 9, 2009)

Rock N Roll Gold


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

RidleyX said:


> Yeah, I noticed. I still see the same articles that talk about 2K mile chain life.


These articles in magazines like Bicycling.com are written towards newbie riders. The type of people who don't know how to measure their chain, or use a chain checker. For these types of people... yes 2,500mi is the safe point to replace a chain. Otherwise they risk ruining their entire drivetrain. 

From the Bicycling.com article.

The 2,000-Mile Rule
To avoid this accelerated wear of your cassette and chainrings, a general rule of thumb is to replace your bike’s chain every 2,000 miles. *Mind you, this is just a starting point.* 


How about this?
https://road.cc/content/feature/when-should-you-replace-your-chain-219450

“For chain replacement we do not state 'every x kms' as this is not possible,” says SRAM.

Campagnolo agrees.
“It is difficult to pin down an exact number to kilometres due to the fact that riders come in different weights and sizes, ride differently, shift more or less frequently, develop more or less wattage, ride on flat or hilly terrain, clean or nasty conditions, take care or leave their chain dirty… all of which create large variables in just how much wear and tear is created,” says Campag's Joshua Riddle.

“It can vary between 3,000km to 8,000km generally speaking, but it could be less or even more in some cases.”



Zinn and the Art of Road Bike Maintenance...
Chain life: 1,000 - 1,500 miles in dirty conditions or infrequent lubrication. Lighter cyclists riding on clean, dry roads *might expect 2,000 - 3,000 miles with poor maintenance* and up to 5,000 miles with a daily high-quality lubrication.

*Zinn also says that he gets almost infinite life out of his chainrings and cogs*.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

tlg said:


> These articles in magazines like Bicycling.com are written towards newbie riders. The type of people who don't know how to measure their chain, or use a chain checker. For these types of people... yes 2,500mi is the safe point to replace a chain. Otherwise they risk ruining their entire drivetrain.
> 
> From the Bicycling.com article.
> 
> ...


Q) When should you replace your chain.

A) When needed.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Doing some bike maintenance. Here's my last two chains lube intervals and mileage.

October 20, 2018.....556.7 
February 1, 2019......899 
April 4, 2019............417.5 
April 29, 2019..........506
June 4, 2019............739.7 
August 4, 2019.........1251 
October 23, 2019......1,117 
November 4, 2019.....637 
...............................6124.3 miles 


December 27, 2019	432 
March 7, 2020...........615.5 
May 11, 2020............1,028.90 
June 20, 2020...........750.4 
July 31, 2020.............879 
September 15, 2020...821.2 
November 1, 2020......661.9 
................................4,368 miles


After 4,000mi my current chain is just a hair over 1/32". Still quite a bit of life left untill 0.5%.
Notice how clean it is!


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

tlg said:


> This is what he's basing that on.
> _So what makes a chain fast? The brief answer is: larger gaps between the various components, allowing lubricant to travel freely and do its job while reducing the sheer amount of friction between the various chain parts. _​
> There's much more to it than "larger gaps". The best performing chains are made with better materials. Better heat treatment. Better chrome/nickle plating. Better low friction coatings. Any liquid lube can easily flow into the tiniest of gaps.


And now to debunk this 'larger gaps' bull$#it.

I measured the clearance between the chain roller and side plates with a feeler gauge. On a brand new Ultegra and Dura Ace chain it's 0.008". On my used chain it's a hair over .008".
A gap .008" is huge in terms of capillary action. If the gap were only .001" it would easily wick the lube. 
The clearance between the roller ID and pin = .012". Almost 2x the side clearance. Gigantic.











I placed a drop of Chain L (about the thickest lube there is) at the gap. Within a minute or two, it was gone. Completely wicked into the roller. It has no problems flowing to where it needs to go.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

tlg said:


> And now to debunk this 'larger gaps' bull$#it.
> 
> I measured the clearance between the chain roller and side plates with a feeler gauge. On a brand new Ultegra and Dura Ace chain it's 0.008". On my used chain it's a hair over .008".
> A gap .008" is huge in terms of capillary action. If the gap were only .001" it would easily wick the lube.
> ...


But....but.....but......RidleyX uses the bestest most spectacular chain lube the world has ever seen and he still only gets 2300 miles out of his chains.


----------



## MDM (Jun 10, 2020)

tlg said:


> And now to debunk this 'larger gaps' bull$#it.
> 
> I measured the clearance between the chain roller and side plates with a feeler gauge. On a brand new Ultegra and Dura Ace chain it's 0.008". On my used chain it's a hair over .008".
> A gap .008" is huge in terms of capillary action. If the gap were only .001" it would easily wick the lube.
> ...


Interesting observations tlg. I guess Lombard is wasting his time by diluting his homemade motor oil chain lube 50% with OMS. I guess also it's a waste of time to run the cranks backwards to work the oil in. I don't think the waxy lubes like Squirt and Smoove wick in too well, I guess. I find it better to hit the chain with a heat gun with these lubes.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

MDM said:


> Interesting observations tlg. I guess Lombard is wasting his time by diluting his homemade motor oil chain lube 50% with OMS. I guess also it's a waste of time to run the cranks backwards to work the oil in. I don't think the waxy lubes like Squirt and Smoove wick in too well, I guess. I find it better to hit the chain with a heat gun with these lubes.


Even if mineral spirits aren't necessary to get the lube thin enough to work into everything, it still wipes off much easier - which is the only reason I run the chain backwards after lubing.

Not to mention mineral spirits is cheaper than motor oil.


----------



## rudge66 (Apr 1, 2019)

Lombard said:


> But....but.....but......RidleyX uses the bestest most spectacular chain lube the world has ever seen and he still only gets 2300 miles out of his chains.


has non relation to road bike performance...flipper per up er..


jnbrown said:


> Rock N Roll Gold


 Humble Review Rocken Roll Gold: Superb 

1.Clean Bike Dry Lube 
2.Keeps Drive Components Residue Free.
3. After Initial Dressing Easy Drop Application.
4. Economical & Climate Efficient Bike Train Matinance .

Cons's :
1 Originals Posters Opinion ( Verboten Socken Frau )
2.Frequent Application. 
3. Sand O Boxy Kinda Trollie Post
4. Re Apply Every 100 Miles.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

rudge66 said:


> Stop being the SandBox Queen such a rude thread trap.
> Humble Review:
> 
> 1.Clean Bike Dry Lube
> ...


So how many miles do YOU get out of your chains, Rudge?

And what is that fetish you have about sandboxes?


----------



## rudge66 (Apr 1, 2019)

I dont know... I think I went the "do what they tell me ".

I'm interested in the C L and Pedro Wax.

I confess the following :
My experience with RockRGold is perfect, for ...75miles 
Then I Wipe and Drip ... yep every 3 rides ( maybe two ) 
I wipe chain clean quick drop Lube it ...

All fitness paced road riders I know...clean and lube fa fa fa 
reak klint ta lee ...


----------



## duriel (Oct 10, 2013)

Like so many here in Amerika, just can't help them.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

rudge66 said:


> Humble Review Rocken Roll Gold: Superb
> 4. Re Apply Every 100 Miles.





rudge66 said:


> I confess the following :
> My experience with RockRGold is perfect, for ...75miles


I don't think superb means what you think it means.

Why would anyone want to use a lube that you'd have to carry on your ride and relube in the middle of a century? ut:


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

tlg said:


> i don't think superb means what you think it means.
> 
> Why would anyone want to use a lube that you'd have to carry on your ride and relube in the middle of a century? ut:


ymssra!


----------



## Srode (Aug 19, 2012)

rudge66 said:


> has non relation to road bike performance...flipper per up er..
> 
> Humble Review Rocken Roll Gold: Superb
> 
> ...


I liked the result from Rocken Roll Gold, but....

1. It's messy to use, cleans the chain nice but makes a mess of my garage floor. 
2. doesn't last very long as you noted.


----------



## rudge66 (Apr 1, 2019)

Srode said:


> I liked the result from Rocken Roll Gold, but....
> 
> 1. It's messy to use, cleans the chain nice but makes a mess of my garage floor.
> 2. doesn't last very long as you noted.


I don't apply it by flooding the chain as recommended. I apply by the drop so its fairly economical. And I'm comfortable with the routine. 

Looking into Chan- L thats been mentioned. Heck I may even try the home brew motor oil/spirts mixture. As long as it keeps my train clean and is easy to reapply.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

rudge66 said:


> I don't apply it by flooding the chain as recommended. I apply by the drop so its fairly economical. And I'm comfortable with the routine.


That's how I apply Chain-L. 1-2 drops per roller. Instead of 75mi per lube, I go 750mi. 

A bottle lasts several years. Very economical.


----------



## MDM (Jun 10, 2020)

tlg said:


> I don't think superb means what you think it means.
> 
> Why would anyone want to use a lube that you'd have to carry on your ride and relube in the middle of a century? ut:


I'm with you on this. I don't want to relube after every ride or so and who wants to hear a squeaky chain on a ride or have to relube during a ride? I'd rather use a lube that lasts a reasonably long time and have a quiet chain. I'll put up with a little more dirtiness.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

rudge66 said:


> I don't apply it by flooding the chain as recommended. I apply by the drop so its fairly economical. And I'm comfortable with the routine.
> 
> Looking into Chan- L thats been mentioned. *Heck I may even try the home brew motor oil/spirts mixture*. As long as it keeps my train clean and is easy to reapply.


Oh no, does this mean that you an Lombard are going to become Pals?


----------



## rudge66 (Apr 1, 2019)

tlg said:


> I don't think superb means what you think it means.
> 
> Why would anyone want to use a lube that you'd have to carry on your ride and relube in the middle of a century? ut:


Good point . I've actually never ridden a century. But will certainly consider the appropriate lube if I do.
100 miles is about the limit for me with R&RG. 
My road course is pretty consistent at 2 hr full blast .


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

tlg said:


> That's how I apply Chain-L. 1-2 drops per roller. Instead of 75mi per lube, I go 750mi.
> 
> A bottle lasts several years. Very economical.


yup, I get similar results with Chain-L.

there's no way I'd use a product that only lasted for 2 rides. that's silly...


----------



## duriel (Oct 10, 2013)

My brother lubes his chain with 1 drop on each link. He is crazy.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

duriel said:


> My brother lubes his chain with 1 drop on each link. He is crazy.


I guess that means TLG and I are crazy too?


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

duriel said:


> My brother lubes his chain with 1 drop on each link. He is crazy.


nah, he's fine...

many people do this.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

duriel said:


> My brother lubes his chain with 1 drop on each link. He is crazy.


It's not the quantity of the drops... it's the quality.


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

tlg said:


> These articles in magazines like Bicycling.com are written towards newbie riders. The type of people who don't know how to measure their chain, or use a chain checker. For these types of people... yes 2,500mi is the safe point to replace a chain. Otherwise they risk ruining their entire drivetrain.
> 
> From the Bicycling.com article.
> 
> ...


I would argue the opposite - the people reading enthusiast mags such as Bicycling.com are not newbies, but actual enthusiasts. I mean, the bikes covered in Bicycling.com are often bikes in the "you paid how much?" demographic. So, nope, simply do not agree.

As far as chain wear goes, I measured my brand new SRAM $20 chain and it measured almost exactly at .25% on my Park CC-2. So, .25% to go and it's toast.


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

tlg said:


> It's not the quantity of the drops... it's the quality.


As far as lubes go, South African made Squirt is consistently rated the best lube you can buy at least for efficiency.


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

tlg said:


> And now to debunk this 'larger gaps' bull$#it.
> 
> I measured the clearance between the chain roller and side plates with a feeler gauge. On a brand new Ultegra and Dura Ace chain it's 0.008". On my used chain it's a hair over .008".
> A gap .008" is huge in terms of capillary action. If the gap were only .001" it would easily wick the lube.
> The clearance between the roller ID and pin = .012". Almost 2x the side clearance. Gigantic.


I've never read anyone determining chain wear by simply using a feeler gauge. To the extent your purpose was establishing that oil could "flow freely," I haven't seen anyone argue otherwise - so it appears to be a strawman argument.

Also, I never argued that tolerances, alone, were the only thing that made chains faster... how silly, esp if anyone has paid attention to my previous posts. I linked to articles that spoke SPECIFICALLY about testing various chains to determine the fastest chains... and have mentioned, repeatedly, that Shimano Ultegra/Dura chains have been rated the fastest chains you can buy. Now, that's not to say it's recommended that one use a Dura Ace chain on a SRAM RED drivetrain... but apples to apples, Shimano had the fastest chains. The best wearing chains IIRC were German Wipperman chains.


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

Lombard said:


> But....but.....but......RidleyX uses the bestest most spectacular chain lube the world has ever seen and he still only gets 2300 miles out of his chains.


But... but.... but, RidleyX never argued that chain lube was a factor in making his chain last longer or shorter. I simply argued that as far as determinate variables are concerned, you can take DuPont's well-regarded Chain Saver chain lube out of the mix. You act as though I was using kerosene to lube my chain... Chain Saver is one of the most popular chain lubes for motorcycle chains, as well. 

So, yes, I got 2300 miles out of a RED chain, but so what? Unless you have a SRAM Force drivetrain and are using a SRAM RED chain, with a Park CC-2 chain checker, then you simply can't directly compare your chain life to mine.


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

xxl said:


> Who's TLG?
> 
> I'm still not clear on when you say the "wear clock" should start, if I'm using a Park chain checker (instead of a ruler) to measure wear. If I'm using a different brand of chain checker, such as the KMC digital dedicated bike chain caliper, do I need to adjust the wear clock to reflect the greater accuracy of the measuring device?
> 
> Also, and again forgive my unfamiliarity with technical terms, but if Shimano built in "excess tolerance," how would that differ from normal design tolerances?


TLG is one of the forum members that I was responding.

By "wear clock," I was referring to the fact that a new chain does not start out at 0, even brand new, on any quality chain checker (Park, Unior, Birzman, KMC, Pedros, etc). In fact, I just measured my new SRAM chain and my Park CC-2 shows it at .25% "wear." That's what I'm talking about.

My reference to Shimano's "excess tolerance" was a specific reference to Shimano having the manufacturing capability to make a bike chain with next to 0 stretch/chain wear when new. In other words, your Park CC-2 would show the new chain at almost "0." Shimano *deliberately* does not manufacture to 0, because at 0, there's too much friction, and therefore, builds in "excess tolerance" into a new chain to make it faster. Yes, it does not last as long... but it's a trade-off.

Make sense?


----------



## Srode (Aug 19, 2012)

RidleyX said:


> As far as chain wear goes, I measured my brand new SRAM $20 chain and it measured almost exactly at .25% on my Park CC-2. So, .25% to go and it's toast.


On the other hand, when it measure's 0.25% more it will be at the starting point of my brand new Ultegra chain.


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

cxwrench said:


> Nope...it's wear on the bushings (inner plates), rollers, and pins.


Yes, thank-you. That's exactly what the articles I posted referenced, and I completely agree. Its the reason that all of these high quality chain checkers are mostly all designed the same way, to measure the inside distance between the rollers. Apparently the KMC is a bit different, and was specifically called out in one article as NOT being reliable on SRAM chains. 

Btw, what is the normal mileage that _you_ see on various chains from SRAM, Shimano, Campy, KMC, etc?


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

Srode said:


> On the other hand, when it measure's 0.25% more it will be at the starting point of my brand new Ultegra chain.


Yes, but I believe you measured that chain off the bike... you need to measure the chain on the bike, or with a similar tension to a bike crank and derailleur in order to estimate stretch, properly. If you were to install that chain on your bike, then your the CC-2 should show .25% or less.


----------



## Srode (Aug 19, 2012)

cxwrench said:


> Nope...it's wear on the bushings (inner plates), rollers, and pins.


inner plates yes, rollers nope - they have nothing to do with chain length.


----------



## rudge66 (Apr 1, 2019)

Lombard said:


> I guess that means TLG and I are crazy too?


Me too. One drop over pins , at weekly maintenance.


----------



## duriel (Oct 10, 2013)

Originally Posted by *cxwrench* 
_Nope...it's wear on the bushings (inner plates), rollers, and pins._

I just don't get it, why aren't the outer plates wearing like the inner ones?~~


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

RidleyX said:


> But... but.... but, RidleyX never argued that chain lube was a factor in making his chain last longer or shorter. I simply argued that as far as determinate variables are concerned, you can take DuPont's well-regarded Chain Saver chain lube out of the mix. You act as though I was using kerosene to lube my chain... Chain Saver is one of the most popular chain lubes for motorcycle chains, as well.
> 
> So, yes, I got 2300 miles out of a RED chain, but so what? Unless you have a SRAM Force drivetrain and are using a SRAM RED chain, with a Park CC-2 chain checker, then you simply can't directly compare your chain life to mine.


Well I can't imagine that your short chain life is because of a problem with SRAM Red chains, SRAM Force drivetrains or any combination of the two.

You're doing something else wrong and so far, all signs are pointing to your Dupont "well regarded" Chain Saver chain lube.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

RidleyX said:


> I would argue the opposite - the people reading enthusiast mags such as Bicycling.com are not newbies, but actual enthusiasts. I mean, the bikes covered in Bicycling.com are often bikes in the "you paid how much?" demographic. So, nope, simply do not agree.


You can believe anything you want. We've seen what you believe. 
But the price of bikes is irrelevant. LOTS of rich people buy $10,000 bikes never having rode a bike before. And have no clue how to take care of their bike. 

Everyone I know owns $4000-$10,000 bikes. Most have been riding many years. A few Cat 1&2 racers. I don't know anyone who reads, or talks about, or makes their buying decision based on what they've read in Bicycling. 



RidleyX said:


> I've never read anyone determining chain wear by simply using a feeler gauge.


Me either. That's not what I was doing. For someone who reads so much, you don't seem to comprehend what you've read. 




> To the extent your purpose was establishing that oil could "flow freely," I haven't seen anyone argue otherwise - so it appears to be a strawman argument.


Oh for christ sake. *YOU *posted this. And it's bull$#it. 


RidleyX said:


> *So what makes a chain fast? The brief answer is: larger gaps between the various components, allowing lubricant to travel freely and do its job while reducing the sheer amount of friction between the various chain parts.*





RidleyX said:


> Chain Saver is one of the most popular chain lubes for motorcycle chains, as well.


Something else you've read somewhere.  Go to a motorcycling forum with your newfound knowledge. 




> So, yes, I got 2300 miles out of a RED chain, but so what? Unless you have a SRAM Force drivetrain and are using a SRAM RED chain, with a Park CC-2 chain checker, then you simply can't directly compare your chain life to mine.


So.... much.... fail. 
No... your magic combination of equipment isn't what caused your 2300mi chain wear


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

RidleyX said:


> *I would argue the opposite - the people reading enthusiast mags such as Bicycling.com are not newbies, but actual enthusiasts. I mean, the bikes covered in Bicycling.com are often bikes in the "you paid how much?" demographic. So, nope, simply do not agree.
> *
> As far as chain wear goes, I measured my brand new SRAM $20 chain and it measured almost exactly at .25% on my Park CC-2. So, .25% to go and it's toast.


Spoken like a true newbie.


----------



## SPlKE (Sep 10, 2007)

This thread reminds me of something Butthead said:

"This sucks because it reminds me of other things that suck."


----------



## xxl (Mar 19, 2002)

RidleyX said:


> TLG is one of the forum members that I was responding.
> 
> By "wear clock," I was referring to the fact that a new chain does not start out at 0, even brand new, on any quality chain checker (Park, Unior, Birzman, KMC, Pedros, etc). In fact, I just measured my new SRAM chain and my Park CC-2 shows it at .25% "wear." That's what I'm talking about.
> 
> ...


I think you might've meant "tlg," not "TLG." 

Some might think that's quibbling, but we have a "Spike" and a "SPIKE" on RBR, as well as a few others whose screen names are similar, so using their actual names with precision can help avoid confusion. 

Make sense?

So, when should I start the "wear clock" on my chains? Using your 2K rule, should I assume that a chain out of the box basically already has 500 miles of wear on it? Wouldn't that mean the real rule is 1,500 miles/chain?

Where did you learn that Shimano can make a chain that isn't worn ("next to 0 stretch") before it's been used? Do other manufacturers have similar technological prowess, that they can make parts that don't have wear before they've been used?


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

xxl said:


> I think you might've meant "tlg," not "TLG."
> 
> Some might think that's quibbling, but we have a "Spike" and a "SPIKE" on RBR, as well as a few others whose screen names are similar, so using their actual names with precision can help avoid confusion.
> 
> Make sense?


Hmmm. I never know names were case sensitive as far as one person being able to be SPIKE and another one Spike. So I presume the search function would work the same way in so far as the search function works?


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

SPlKE said:


> This thread reminds me of something Butthead said:
> 
> "This sucks because it reminds me of other things that suck."


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

xxl said:


> I think you might've meant "tlg," not "TLG."
> 
> Some might think that's quibbling, but we have a "Spike" and a "SPIKE" on RBR, as well as a few others whose screen names are similar, so using their actual names with precision can help avoid confusion.
> 
> Make sense?


Didn't you mean tig? 

I don't think case works that way. There is no user 'TLG' in the member list. So I tried to create an account as 'TLG' and it said it already exists. Which I was able to log in with. And then displays my user as 'tlg'.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

_Quote Originally Posted by RidleyX
I would argue the opposite - the people reading enthusiast mags such as Bicycling.com are not newbies, but actual enthusiasts._

this statement proves that you're just jerking our chain...


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

tlg said:


> Didn't you mean tig?


There is a tig (or TIG?) on this forum, but we haven't heard from him in a long time.


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

xxl said:


> I think you might've meant "tlg," not "TLG."
> 
> Some might think that's quibbling, but we have a "Spike" and a "SPIKE" on RBR, as well as a few others whose screen names are similar, so using their actual names with precision can help avoid confusion.
> 
> Make sense?


Initials are usually capitalized and I had mentioned "TLG" had already answered this question... but no need to get pedantic. No biggie.



> So, when should I start the "wear clock" on my chains? Using your 2K rule, should I assume that a chain out of the box basically already has 500 miles of wear on it? Wouldn't that mean the real rule is 1,500 miles/chain?
> 
> Where did you learn that Shimano can make a chain that isn't worn ("next to 0 stretch") before it's been used? Do other manufacturers have similar technological prowess, that they can make parts that don't have wear before they've been used?


Why is this "my rule?" I've already linked to the articles where it's been mentioned as _*a rule (of thumb) *_shared by most bike mechanics. I simply confirmed that my chain was, in fact, stretched well over .50% when I checked it after approx 2300 miles of use.

Whether you decide, personally, to start a wear clock or not, doesn't change the fact that a brand new chain will register stretch/wear on a chain checker tool. Seems like a facetious and rhetorical question... but, I'm sure you already realized that.

The question about Shimano is absurd. Of course Shimano can make a chain with extremely precise tolerances as far as the connections points, rollers, and pins. I'm not sure what you don't get, here. It's fairly obvious to anyone that understands simple mechanics. The chain must be flexible to run through the chain rings, rear cassette, and jockey wheels of the rear derailleur. A chain that was made with 0.00001% tolerance would be so tight, that it would not be very flexible or fast. I'm not sure why you're making this out to be some amazing discover other than you don't like the fact that I'm the one that stated it. 

In other news.... water is wet.


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

Oxtox said:


> _Quote Originally Posted by RidleyX
> I would argue the opposite - the people reading enthusiast mags such as Bicycling.com are not newbies, but actual enthusiasts._
> 
> this statement proves that you're just jerking our chain...



I'll give you points for the double entendre, but if you truly think that non-enthusiasts are the people that buy niche magazines like Bicycling, then you clearly do not understand enthusiast magazine demos.


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

SPlKE said:


> This thread reminds me of something Butthead said:
> 
> "This sucks because it reminds me of other things that suck."



Says the guy with a Jackass avatar... but I digress. I am Cornholio!


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

RidleyX said:


> Why is this "my rule?" I've already linked to the articles where it's been mentioned as _*a rule (of thumb) *_shared by most bike mechanics. I simply confirmed that my chain was, in fact, stretched well over .50% when I checked it after approx 2300 miles of use.


The point is if you are pontificating the use of a "superior" chain lube, mentioning that your chains wear out at 2,300 miles isn't a good argument to use when many riders get well over 6,000 out of their chains by NOT using this "superior" chain lube. :idea: 



RidleyX said:


> Says the guy with a Jackass avatar................


Yikes! So now you're telling us you can't tell the difference between a horse and a donkey?


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

tlg said:


> You can believe anything you want. We've seen what you believe.
> But the price of bikes is irrelevant. LOTS of rich people buy $10,000 bikes never having rode a bike before. And have no clue how to take care of their bike.
> 
> Everyone I know owns $4000-$10,000 bikes. Most have been riding many years. A few Cat 1&2 racers. I don't know anyone who reads, or talks about, or makes their buying decision based on what they've read in Bicycling.


Yes, the readership of Bicycling magazine is poor, uneducated women that live in trailer parks and hate bikes, according to you. I mean, it's way too sensical that above-average income, more highly educated, males that own and enjoy bicycles are the target demo... but that makes too much sense in your imaginary world.



> Me either. That's not what I was doing. For someone who reads so much, you don't seem to comprehend what you've read.


You seem to doubt everything that *IS* written... stating that everyone is wrong but you. You're not one of those crazy Q-annon supporters, by chance, are you?



> Oh for christ sake. *YOU *posted this. And it's bull$#it.


Okay, you're arguing a different point. It's like me saying the sky is blue, and then you arguing that the sky is a particular Valspar paint hue of blue, and I disagree... and then you argue that I said, "the sky is blue," though. Yes, of course, having built in "slack" in a chain and not manufacturing the chain to a 0.00001% tolerance allows oil to flow better in a chain. Your anecdotal chain lube pic doesn't actually prove that the oil reached all of the internal parts of the pins and rollers. You merely *think *that it did, but have no actual scientific evidence. Also, as the article points out, allowing for looser tolerances allows oil (from basic bottle droppers) to more easily penetrate the internal parts of the chain.



> Something else you've read somewhere.  Go to a motorcycling forum with your newfound knowledge.


I don't care much for motorcycles. Maybe, instead, you should start a bike chain forum with all of your expert scientific knowledge about bike chains. 



> So.... much.... fail.
> No... your magic combination of equipment isn't what caused your 2300mi chain wear


As I've stated over and over... I was surprised that my chain wore that much in such a short period of time, but at only $20 per chain, it's no sweat. I can afford it. Also, you don't appear to have a SRAM drivetrain or SRAM chain, so, maybe, just maybe, you might want to take that into consideration as you remind everyone just how knowledgeable you are about a product you don't even own... and haven't serviced... and don't even own a proper chain-checker tool, either. Just a thought.


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

Lombard said:


> The point is if you are pontificating the use of a "superior" chain lube, mentioning that your chains wear out at 2,300 miles isn't a good argument to use when many riders get well over 6,000 out of their chains by NOT using this "superior" chain lube. :idea:



You're completely changing what I *actually* stated, and creating a strawman argument. So, let me set you straight: I am *NOT* arguing that DuPont Chain Saver is the best chain lube you can buy. I've already stated, multiple times, that South African made Squirt was rated the best. I'm merely stating that I'm using a well-established brand of chain lube, and not some one-off witch's petroleum distillate brew of my own recipe... so, as to control for outside variables.

So, let's go over this again - I'm not claiming DuPont Chain Saver, is the best chain lube. I'm stating that it's an acceptable chain lube that has many positive reviews, and my chain lube is not the reason why my chain "*only"* lasted 2300 miles.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

RidleyX said:


> You seem to doubt everything that *IS* written... stating that everyone is wrong but you.


Nope, just 'your' beliefs and regurgitation of things you've read. 
Pssttt.... it's not just me.... you've been told over and over that your understanding of chain lube and wear is wrong.

But hey... you do you and keep using your "well regarded" Chain Saver lube that no one here has heard of.



> Yes, of course, having built in "slack" in a chain and not manufacturing the chain to a 0.00001% tolerance allows oil to flow better in a chain.


Nearly 30yrs as an engineer and I got no clue what a 0.00001% tolerance is.

No... this magical 'slack' you keep talking about has zilch... nothing to do with 'oil flow'. Guess you missed capillary action in science class.




> Your anecdotal chain lube pic doesn't actually prove that the oil reached all of the internal parts of the pins and rollers. You merely *think *that it did, but have no actual scientific evidence.


Where do you think the oil disappeared to? ut: FYI... it didn't evaporate.




> Also, as the article points out, allowing for looser tolerances allows oil (from basic bottle droppers) to more easily penetrate the internal parts of the chain.


Nope. Looser tolerances are irrelevant. We're talking tens of thousandths of an inch. An extra 0.0005" isn't going to make oil flow any different.





> Also, you don't appear to have a SRAM drivetrain or SRAM chain, so, maybe, just maybe, you might want to take that into consideration as you remind everyone just how knowledgeable you are about a product you don't even own... and haven't serviced... and don't even own a proper chain-checker tool, either. Just a thought.


Thoughtless. You should stop assuming things. Many of us here have years of experience on all sorts of equipment. Currently no I don't have a SRAM drivetrain. However my previous bike was full SRAM Red... and guess what.... my chains and cassettes lasted just as long.


----------



## xxl (Mar 19, 2002)

RidleyX said:


> Initials are usually capitalized and I had mentioned "TLG" had already answered this question... but no need to get pedantic. No biggie.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If there's no need to get pedantic, why are you doing so? Is it because I correctly pointed out that you responded to "tlg"? And you figure that your personal initializing conventions are just the way it's done?

OK.

Your rule, aka "the 2K rule," means that you're the only one on the thread who's advocating it, so it's "yours." I didn't mean to imply you _wrote_ this rule, and assumed that all knew its origination here was as a "Bicycling" article you saw. Sorry for your confusion.

Anyway, re your rule of thumb, you wrote upthread about how chains (particularly faster chains) already have as much as 25% "pre-wear" built into the design; this would imply that a "2K" changing interval should really be at 1,500 (2,,000 * 75%), yes? Is that correct?

I'm sorry that you consider the question about Shimano absurd, but I was only going by your earlier posts about how Shimano could, if it really wanted, make a chain that has no wear when new,*: "..._Shimano having the manufacturing capability to make a bike chain with next to 0 stretch/chain wear when new."
__
_Then, you said:_ "In other words, your Park CC-2 would show the new chain at almost "0." 

_IOW, the Park CC-2 is a bullsh!t gauge if one is trying to assess chain wear, since by your own lights it can't distinguish between "not worn" and "25% worn."

This is why so many people use a ruler. It's just easier and more accurate, and you can also use the ruler to aid in drawing nice straight lines; try doing_ that _with a CC-2!

Speaking of simple mechanics, you don't seem to understand the difference between manufacturing _tolerances_ and product design _clearances_, and I think it's hampering your ability to convey your idea that chains (not just Shimano, btw) have both.



*Imagine that, no wear when, um, unworn! What'll they think of next, pre-unsliced bread?


----------



## xxl (Mar 19, 2002)

RidleyX said:


> ...my chain lube is not the reason why my chain "*only"* lasted 2300 miles.


This part I agree with.

What do you think is the reason, though, if not the chain lube, for your low-mileage chains?


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

xxl said:


> This part I agree with.
> 
> What do you think is the reason, though, if not the chain lube, for your low-mileage chains?


Well considering that we have eliminated the possibility of the following:

1) SRAM chains being so far inferior to Shimano chains.

2) OP doesn't do most of his riding in harsh conditions like rain, wet roads, mud, dirt, etc.

There are only a few possibilities left in order of chance:

1) The inaccuracy of the Park Tool CC2 Chain Checker.

2) The OP's choice of chain lube.

3) The OP's frequency of lube.

4) The OP weighs 250lbs. or more or is a total monster on the bike.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

RidleyX said:


> It's like me saying the sky is blue, and then you arguing that the sky is a particular Valspar paint hue of blue, and I disagree... and then you argue that I said, "the sky is blue," though.


Gawd, you come up with some crackpot analogies. I used to work with a guy who would say stuff like this in morning meetings. He's no longer working there.


----------



## duriel (Oct 10, 2013)

Well, I think it's the mechanic. Who is the mechanic?


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

Lombard said:


> Gawd, you come up with some crackpot analogies. I used to work with a guy who would say stuff like this in morning meetings. He's no longer working there.


I thought that was an excellent analogy. It'd probably get me promoted in your company.


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

xxl said:


> If there's no need to get pedantic, why are you doing so? Is it because I correctly pointed out that you responded to "tlg"? And you figure that your personal initializing conventions are just the way it's done?
> 
> OK.


No, you pointing out that I did not capitalize the letters would be "pedantic."



> Your rule, aka "the 2K rule," means that you're the only one on the thread who's advocating it, so it's "yours." I didn't mean to imply you _wrote_ this rule, and assumed that all knew its origination here was as a "Bicycling" article you saw. Sorry for your confusion.


I'm not confused at all. I mentioned a rule of thumb that seems to be fairly well established if you did any research. Sorry for your lack of research.



> Anyway, re your rule of thumb, you wrote upthread about how chains (particularly faster chains) already have as much as 25% "pre-wear" built into the design; this would imply that a "2K" changing interval should really be at 1,500 (2,,000 * 75%), yes? Is that correct?


Not correct. Do you understand tread depth and why high performance tires have lower tread depths vs all season tires? Well, that's essentially the same thing here, just with chains. That would be like measuring your brand new Bridgestone Potenzas or Pirelli P Zeros and expecting the same tread depth you'd get on your budget-priced all season tires. A bike chain, like high performance tires, has some slack built into it that is measurable on a chain wear measurement tool. Just like the high performance tires that shave tread depth in favor of better heat performance at extremely high speeds, the bike chains deliberately have excess slack built into them so that their faster and more flexible... allowing oil to more easily penetrate their links.



> I'm sorry that you consider the question about Shimano absurd, but I was only going by your earlier posts about how Shimano could, if it really wanted, make a chain that has no wear when new,*: "..._Shimano having the manufacturing capability to make a bike chain with next to 0 stretch/chain wear when new."
> _Then, you said:_ "In other words, your Park CC-2 would show the new chain at almost "0."
> 
> _IOW, the Park CC-2 is a bullsh!t gauge if one is trying to assess chain wear, since by your own lights it can't distinguish between "not worn" and "25% worn."
> ...


The question on Shimano was still absurd. I've repeatedly stated that it would not make sense to build a chain with ultra tight tolerances. I'm amazed that this is so complicated for you. Imagine installing a door with almost no tolerance? It would rub on the door jam as the wood swelled based on weather and humidity conditions. Doors are installed with excess tolerances. Chains move faster if they're not overly tight. The SR 71 Blackbird's titanium outer panels were designed with excess tolerances... in fact, it would leak jet fuel while it sat waiting to take off. Was this because the people at Lockheed didn't know how to build a high speed jet? Uhmmm, no, it's because the titanium panels expanded at 3x the speed of sound due to the extreme heat. If the panels were designed without gaps, then the outside of the plane would start to break apart at top speed. 

GAPS are DELIBERATELY engineered into many products. This is not a new concept.

Finally, nothing is wrong with the CC-2 if you understand how it works. The scale starts at 0, but as I've repeatedly stated, new chains are designed with slack, so a high quality new chain should never start at 0. My brand new SRAM registered a .25%, meaning that .25% is a built in tolerance, and I have .25% of wear on the chain before the ACTUAL WEAR (.25%) + BUILT-IN SLACK (.25%) = .50%. Then, it will be time for a new $20 chain.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

RidleyX said:


> Not correct. Do you understand tread depth and why high performance tires have lower tread depths vs all season tires? Well, that's essentially the same thing here, just with chains. That would be like measuring your brand new Bridgestone Potenzas or Pirelli P Zeros and expecting the same tread depth you'd get on your budget-priced all season tires. A bike chain, like high performance tires, has some slack built into it that is measurable on a chain wear measurement tool.


No... just... no no no no no.




> Just like the high performance tires that shave tread depth in favor of better heat performance at extremely high speeds, the bike chains deliberately have excess slack built into them so that their faster and more flexible... allowing oil to more easily penetrate their links.


NO! This is BULL$#it.
There is no excess slack built in... and surely not to allow "oil flow". 



Lombard said:


> Gawd, you come up with some crackpot analogies.


X Eleventy







> The question on Shimano was still absurd. I've repeatedly stated that it would not make sense to build a chain with ultra tight tolerances.


Clueless. Utter clueless.
Chains are all made to ultra tight tolerances. They're made to tolerances of tens of thousandths of an inch. 




> I'm amazed that this is so complicated for you. Imagine installing a door with almost no tolerance?


Tolerance ≠ Clearance





> It would rub on the door jam as the wood swelled based on weather and humidity conditions. Doors are installed with excess tolerances. Chains move faster if they're not overly tight. The SR 71 Blackbird's titanium outer panels were designed with excess tolerances... in fact, it would leak jet fuel while it sat waiting to take off. Was this because the people at Lockheed didn't know how to build a high speed jet?





Lombard said:


> Gawd, you come up with some crackpot analogies.


X Eleventy


----------



## xxl (Mar 19, 2002)

RidleyX said:


> No, you pointing out that I did not capitalize the letters would be "pedantic."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



[/QUOTE]


Why would it be "pedantic" to note your mistake? 

And other than _you_ bringing it to discussion, there's simply no such thing as a "2K Rule" re changing chains, because there are too many other variables that affect chain wear to be able to recommend an arbitrary figure, and such a low-mileage one at that (numerous posters, who are mostly seasoned riders, have pointed this out to you). That you've convinced yourself otherwise is irrelevant.

I understand this about the CC-2; it's unreliable. You said as much upthread.

I also understand you really struggle with the distinction between design specifications, such as clearances, and manufacturing tolerances, and now some other engineering fundamentals. As there are a number of experienced and knowledgeable engineers who understand these things well posting on RBR (some of them here), I suggest you read carefully what they have to say about how things actually work.

And use a ruler. So much more reliable.:yesnod:


----------



## xxl (Mar 19, 2002)

tlg said:


> No... just... no no no no no.
> 
> 
> NO! This is BULL$#it.
> ...



Q: What is it called when a part is measured and found to be outside of "excess tolerances?"


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

tlg said:


> No... just... no no no no no.
> 
> 
> NO! This is BULL$#it.
> There is no excess slack built in... and surely not to allow "oil flow".


The lower tread depth which leads to lower tread wear is the "slack" in the high perf tires. Try to keep up.




> Clueless. Utter clueless.
> Chains are all made to ultra tight tolerances. They're made to tolerances of tens of thousandths of an inch.
> 
> 
> Tolerance ≠ Clearance



Ya know, this is ridiculous, these word games. I used the word "slack" in my OP, and somebody said something like "slack and tolerances" are not the same thing. Okay, fine, so I said for the sake of argument, I'll add the word "tolerance" in an attempt to avoid arguments over the word. Now, YOU don't like slack or tolerance, now you want "clearance," as though you had no idea what I meant!!! Tolerances and Clearance are not mutually exclusive. I mean, if you want to be exacting with the language, then BOTH Clearance and Tolerance are at play. Every bike chain will have CLEARANCES between the pins and rollers to allow them to move smoothly, and for cost reasons there will be acceptable manufacturing TOLERANCES that may add to the CLEARANCES. 

You knew what I was talking about, but does that make you feel better, now?


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Why would it be "pedantic" to note your mistake? 

And other than _you_ bringing it to discussion, there's simply no such thing as a "2K Rule" re changing chains, because there are too many other variables that affect chain wear to be able to recommend an arbitrary figure, and such a low-mileage one at that (numerous posters, who are mostly seasoned riders, have pointed this out to you). That you've convinced yourself otherwise is irrelevant.[/QUOTE]
To reiterate.... this was specifically pointed out. Even *SRAM *says so.
How about this?
https://road.cc/content/feature/when-should-you-replace-your-chain-219450

“For chain replacement we do not state 'every x kms' as this is not possible,” says SRAM.

Campagnolo agrees.
“It is difficult to pin down an exact number to kilometres due to the fact that riders come in different weights and sizes, ride differently, shift more or less frequently, develop more or less wattage, ride on flat or hilly terrain, clean or nasty conditions, take care or leave their chain dirty… all of which create large variables in just how much wear and tear is created,” says Campag's Joshua Riddle.

“It can vary between 3,000km to 8,000km generally speaking, but it could be less or even more in some cases.”


Zinn and the Art of Road Bike Maintenance...
Chain life: 1,000 - 1,500 miles in dirty conditions or infrequent lubrication. Lighter cyclists riding on clean, dry roads *might expect 2,000 - 3,000 miles with poor maintenance* and up to 5,000 miles with a daily high-quality lubrication.

*Zinn also says that he gets almost infinite life out of his chainrings and cogs*.​


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

RidleyX said:


> The lower tread depth which leads to lower tread wear is the "slack" in the high perf tires. Try to keep up.


Impossible to keep up to nonsensical analogies. 





> You knew what I was talking about


Nope. Because you're all over the place with your explanations, writing paragraphs of meaningless analogies making no sense. We have to take your words as face value and not attempt to find their hidden meanings.


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

tlg said:


> Why would it be "pedantic" to note your mistake?


You don't know what you're talking about. SRAM and sram are still SRAM. One is capitalized, one is not. It's a ridiculous argument. Capitalizing a name does not make me wrong because somebody was confused simply due to capitalization. Ya KnOw?



> And other than _you_ bringing it to discussion, there's simply no such thing as a "2K Rule" re changing chains, because there are too many other variables that affect chain wear to be able to recommend an arbitrary figure, and such a low-mileage one at that (numerous posters, who are mostly seasoned riders, have pointed this out to you). That you've convinced yourself otherwise is irrelevant.
> 
> To reiterate.... this was specifically pointed out. Even *SRAM *says so.How about this?
> https://road.cc/content/feature/when-should-you-replace-your-chain-219450
> ...


You throw up more strawmen than a 1000 acre farm. You're argument is ridiculous, because you're arguing with yourself - you're certainly not representing what I actually said. I clearly indicated that my chain was worn out at 2300 miles, and there was evidence online of what was referred to as the 2K mile rule. Just like the "3k mile oil change" is often referenced... still to this day... while the manufacturer oil change schedule on my car is 15K miles. Regardless, my chain only lasted 2300 miles, and there is plenty of evidence that this type of life expectancy is not unusual.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

RidleyX said:


> you're certainly not representing what I actually said.


B.S., YOU are the only one talking about a 2K rule. YOU keep saying there is rule of thumb that seems to be fairly well established
But SRAM, the manufacturer of YOUR drivetrain says THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE.

Clearly it's not established. I trust SRAM over you.




> Just like the "3k mile oil change" is often referenced... still to this day... while the manufacturer oil change schedule on my car is 15K miles.


Oh christ. More analogies.

The only people referencing 3k oil changes are people trying to sell you oil. (Kinda like Ceramicspeed)




> Regardless, my chain only lasted 2300 miles, and there is plenty of evidence that this type of life expectancy is not unusual.


Everyone here agrees, it's not unusual...... for people who use s#it lube or don't maintain their chain.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

RidleyX said:


> Not correct. Do you understand tread depth and why high performance tires have lower tread depths vs all season tires? Well, that's essentially the same thing here, just with chains. That would be like measuring your brand new *Bridgestone Potenzas* or Pirelli P Zeros and expecting the same tread depth you'd get on your budget-priced all season tires. A bike chain, like *high performance tires*, has some slack built into it that is measurable on a chain wear measurement tool. Just like the high performance tires that shave tread depth in favor of better heat performance at extremely high speeds, the bike chains deliberately have excess slack built into them so that their faster and more flexible... allowing oil to more easily penetrate their links.


Did you say "*Bridgestone Potenzas*" and "*high performance tires*" in the same paragraph? Bridgestone Potenzas suck! I speak from experience. But don't take my word for it, just look at the ton of negative reviews on Tirerack. Many new cars used to come with Bridgestone Potenzas because car companies got a sweet deal for buying those in bulk. Another gawd awful RidleyX analogy strikes again!



tlg said:


> Nope. Because you're all over the place with your explanations, writing paragraphs of meaningless analogies making no sense.


It's getting beyond that and is more like word salad at this point. ut:


----------



## MDM (Jun 10, 2020)

Too much bickering in this thread.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

MDM said:


> Too much bickering in this thread.


Seriously...it's chain lube. Get over it.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

cxwrench said:


> Seriously...it's chain lube. Get over it.


If you happen to belong to any car forums, you should see the debates over oil and oil change intervals.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Lombard said:


> If you happen to belong to any car forums, you should see the debates over oil and oil change intervals.


No doubt! Trans oil in a Fiesta ST...you could lose your life if you use the wrong stuff. Type, interval, quantity...it's madness.


----------



## SPlKE (Sep 10, 2007)

Man, chain lube thread donnybrooks have come a long way since the last one I was involved in, a few months ago.

I can't even bring myself to say what chains crave.


----------



## RidleyX (Oct 6, 2020)

tlg said:


> B.S., YOU are the only one talking about a 2K rule. YOU keep saying there is rule of thumb that seems to be fairly well established
> But SRAM, the manufacturer of YOUR drivetrain says THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE.
> 
> Clearly it's not established. I trust SRAM over you.


I'm NOT the only one that mentioned the 2K mile rule. YOU even referenced the article that mentioned a 2K mile rule, in one of YOUR posts. So, by definition, I'm NOT the only one that said that. I didn't just make it up.

Also, you keep changing the argument. I never, never, never, never, said that EVERY chain needs to be changed at 2K miles. I simply said there's an easy rule of thumb that suggest that most chains last about 2K miles... but due to a whole host of variables, your chain could last longer. So, to refresh -- I am NOT claiming a chain ONLY lasts 2K miles in EVERY circumstance, so quit claiming that this is my argument. Again, strawman argument after strawman argument. 



> Oh christ. More analogies.
> 
> The only people referencing 3k oil changes are people trying to sell you oil. (Kinda like Ceramicspeed)


That's not true. Plenty of people think they NEED to change their oil after 3K miles, even when they change it themselves. I'm claiming that plenty of evidence has proven this wrong, but it's still an industry rule of thumb. 



> Everyone here agrees, it's not unusual...... for people who use s#it lube or don't maintain their chain.


Well that's wonderful, esp since I use quality chain lube, and do maintain my chain. Are you really arguing that I DON'T maintain my chain?


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

SPlKE said:


> Man, chain lube thread donnybrooks have come a long way since the last one I was involved in, a few months ago.
> 
> I can't even bring myself to say what chains crave.


Modern chains have a more sophisticated taste palette. Cravings have been replaced by yearnings


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

RidleyX said:


> I'm NOT the only one that mentioned the 2K mile rule. YOU even referenced the article that mentioned a 2K mile rule, in one of YOUR posts.


DERP.
YOU are the one talking about and defending a 2K rule as if it has some legitimacy. Not me. (or anyone else)





> Also, you keep changing the argument. I never, never, never, never, said that EVERY chain needs to be changed at 2K miles. I simply said there's an easy rule of thumb that suggest that most chains last about 2K miles... but due to a whole host of variables, your chain could last longer.


DERP
Nope. Fail.

YOU keep saying "there is rule of thumb that seems to be fairly well established" I've pointed this out over and over. I've changed nothing. 


There is no well established rule of thumb. This is B.S.
SRAM, the manufacturer of YOUR drivetrain says THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE.





> Well that's wonderful, esp since I use quality chain lube, and do maintain my chain. Are you really arguing that I DON'T maintain my chain?


No I take you at your word that you maintain it..... thus... you're using s#it lube. No matter what you think you've read about how 'awesome' it is.


----------



## smokersteve (May 22, 2016)

Thanks guys for the reminder why I rarely use this forum anymore.
You sound like a bunch of old hags bickering...


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

smokersteve said:


> Thanks guys for the reminder why I rarely use this forum anymore.
> You sound like a bunch of old hags bickering...


Oh come on, join in the fun! :thumbsup:


----------



## duriel (Oct 10, 2013)

smokersteve said:


> Thanks guys for the reminder why I rarely use this forum anymore.
> You sound like a bunch of old hags bickering...


That is SEXIST! ... I still think it's the mechanic, it's the mechanic, right?


----------



## SPlKE (Sep 10, 2007)

smokersteve said:


> Thanks guys for the reminder why I rarely use this forum anymore.
> You sound like a bunch of old hags bickering...


I'm a _bitter _old bickering hag, to put a finer point on it. You sound like you have the right stuff to be a bitter old bickering hag too. Come, join us! 

What's your favorite chain lube and why?

I'm guessing you're a homebrew chain lube enthusiast. They tend to be the crochetiest and most sanctimonious of us bitter old bickering hags. Hags? Amirite or amirite?


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

SPlKE said:


> I'm a _bitter _old bickering hag.......


I thought you were a bitter old plug.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Lombard said:


> I thought you were a bitter old plug.


*Nag*, bitter old nag.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/nag

nag 2
(năg)
n.
1. A horse, especially:
a. An old or worn-out horse.

b. Slang A racehorse.

2. Archaic A small saddle horse or pony.


----------



## SPlKE (Sep 10, 2007)

velodog said:


> *Nag*, bitter old nag.
> 
> https://www.thefreedictionary.com/nag
> 
> ...


Thanks, dog. I have to correct people at least a million times a day.

I try to keep my blinders on and aligned properly. But sometimes, I just can't ignore the taunts.

Neigh neigh, I say. Ich bin ein nag, to paraphrase JFK.


----------



## SPlKE (Sep 10, 2007)

Lombard said:


> I thought you were a bitter old plug.


You're a bitter old plug.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

velodog said:


> *Nag*, bitter old nag.
> 
> https://www.thefreedictionary.com/nag
> 
> ...


Plug applies too:

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/plug

*12. (Animals) chiefly US an old horse*

But I guess if we're trying to be sexist as duriel says, nag is better.


----------



## nayr497 (Nov 8, 2008)

cxwrench said:


> I'm about as easy going when it comes to lube as you can get. As long as it's not wax or White Lightning I really don't care. At the shop we use Tri Flow mostly, or WD40 Dry. Bontrager lube works well. I like SCC Slick, a buddy reps it. Chain L is great, and I like the smell of gear oil. Dumonde is great. As long as I can clean it off when I wash my bike (which means it easily breaks down w/ either Pedro's degreaser or MuckOff) I don't care. It doesn't matter if it lasts 150mi or 1500. It's just chain lube.
> 
> 
> As long as it's not wax.


Ah ha ha. Recently read a _long_ article on the amaziness of wax and there were many, many folks doing it and swearing by it.

I was like...well...
1) I don't have a dedicated bike work garage
2) I have two sons under 5, time is limited in ALL areas
3) I use my slow cooker for cooking...food!
4) I don't have a shop wall for storing assoted pre-waxed chains for my numerous bikes
5) I have nowhere to store an industrial sized cheese wheel sized block of wax...

Thank you for speaking some sense right there!


----------



## xxl (Mar 19, 2002)

nayr497 said:


> Ah ha ha. Recently read a _long_ article on the amaziness of wax and there were many, many folks doing it and swearing by it.
> 
> I was like...well...
> 1) I don't have a dedicated bike work garage
> ...


BITD, I used a wax lube for my chains, and it worked fine, for maybe a couple hundred miles.

The chain stayed pretty clean during those miles.

Also, one really needs to solvent-clean the chain before _re_-waxing, or the wax ends up being increasingly contaminated as it is returned to the wax bath every few hundred miles.

Basically, it's a maintenance schedule that simply isn't for lazy people.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

xxl said:


> Basically, it's a maintenance schedule that simply isn't for lazy people.


meh, no one has ever accused me of being lazy...there's just no justification to spend the time and energy on a process that provides so little benefit.


----------



## MDM (Jun 10, 2020)

What bothers me about hot wax is the frequency that you have to do it. I tried it and found it wasn't worth all the time and effort involved.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Oxtox said:


> meh, no one has ever accused me of being lazy...there's just no justification to spend the time and energy on a process that provides so little benefit.


^^^This.^^^


----------



## xxl (Mar 19, 2002)

MDM said:


> What bothers me about hot wax is the frequency that you have to do it. I tried it and found it wasn't worth all the time and effort involved.





Lombard said:


> ^^^This.^^^



That's_ just _the sort of thing a lazy person would say.


----------



## duriel (Oct 10, 2013)

I was oiling my chains the other day and ran out of ProLink on my road bike, so I just grabbed a can of used moto motor oil and lubed like crazy on my MCross bike.
Rode the MCross yesterday up the mountain, the FD shifted like it never has before, it was a new day.
.... so we are going a whole new direction >>>>


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

duriel said:


> I was oiling my chains the other day and ran out of ProLink on my road bike, so I just grabbed a can of used moto motor oil and lubed like crazy on my MCross bike.
> Rode the MCross yesterday up the mountain, the FD shifted like it never has before, it was a new day.
> .... so we are going a whole new direction >>>>


So you keep your used motor oil in a can?


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Lombard said:


> So you keep your used motor oil in a can?


Pretty normal if you change your own oil. You store the old stuff in the container until you take it to the recycling center. I often have 5-15qts of used oil around.

Want some?


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

tlg said:


> Pretty normal if you change your own oil. You store the old stuff in the container until you take it to the recycling center. I often have 5-15qts of used oil around.
> 
> Want some?


Ummm, no thanks.

When I used to change my own motor oil, I had a large glass bottle which I used because it had a cap.

Used motor oil has carcinogens. I don't recommend it for chain lube which can easily come in contact with skin.


----------



## duriel (Oct 10, 2013)

I pretty much keep all skin parts clean of oil. It's really not that hard to do, just don't play with your chain. I don't think it's any dangerous than new oil, IMO.

Yea, I put some used moto motor oil in a oil can, not in the original quart can. I keep other used oil in old gallon plastic tea containers with caps.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

duriel said:


> I pretty much keep all skin parts clean of oil. It's really not that hard to do, just don't play with your chain. I don't think it's any dangerous than new oil, IMO.


Two words: Chain tatoo. It happens.

And no, you are wrong. Used motor oil is carcinogenic. Fresh motor oil is not carcinogenic:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2612787/

Besides, how much $$ are you saving by not using fresh motor oil? It's way, way cheaper than the latest "miracle" chain lube.


----------



## SPlKE (Sep 10, 2007)

Lombard said:


> Two words: Chain tatoo. It happens.
> 
> And no, you are wrong. Used motor oil is carcinogenic. Fresh motor oil is not carcinogenic:
> 
> ...


In other words, six bucks an ounce is not a bargain for miracle chain lube?


----------



## duriel (Oct 10, 2013)

Lombard said:


> Two words: Chain tatoo. It happens.
> 
> And no, you are wrong. Used motor oil is carcinogenic. Fresh motor oil is not carcinogenic:


OK, I can change to new motor oil. But I used to be a lift jockey and had oil all over many times during a change, then I move up to #1 tire changer. ... didn't kill me yet, although I do have a few issues!

I have ridden 5000m/yr for 50 years, never had a chain tatoo, don't even know what it is. Perform proper maintanence and that probably will not happen!!!!~ My max power isn't that great, never was!


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

duriel said:


> OK, I can change to new motor oil. But I used to be a lift jockey and had oil all over many times during a change, then I move up to #1 tire changer. ... didn't kill me yet, *although I do have a few issues!*


Clearly.


----------



## dir-t (Oct 14, 2005)

Lombard said:


> Two words: Chain tatoo. It happens.


Cancer from the occasional chain tattoo? 

I would worry more about breathing car exhaust while riding on the road. Or VOCs off-gassing from the lawnmower in my garage, or while filling up my car's gas tank, fire retardants on furniture, or hundreds of other more frequent low-level exposures that modern life throws at us everyday.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

dir-t said:


> Cancer from the occasional chain tattoo?
> 
> I would worry more about breathing car exhaust while riding on the road. Or VOCs off-gassing from the lawnmower in my garage, or while filling up my car's gas tank, fire retardants on furniture, or hundreds of other more frequent low-level exposures that modern life throws at us everyday.


True. But why add one more?


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Lombard said:


> Two words: Chain tatoo. It happens.
> 
> And no, you are wrong. Used motor oil is carcinogenic. Fresh motor oil is not carcinogenic:
> 
> ...


I really think that worrying about carcinogenic chain tattoo's is taking things a bit too far. Getting run over by a distracted driver is a far greater worry, and I don't know about you, but that ain't keeping me from riding on the road.

Charcoal grilled food is tasty.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

velodog said:


> I really think that worrying about carcinogenic chain tattoo's is taking things a bit too far. Getting run over by a distracted driver is a far greater worry, and I don't know about you, but that ain't keeping me from riding on the road.
> 
> Charcoal grilled food is tasty.


Not the greatest analogies. 

Road biking and tasty charred meat gives me far greater pleasure than lubing my chain with used motor oil.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

The bestest best chain lube evar.

https://silca.cc/products/synergeti...wng&utm_content=100110457&utm_source=hs_email


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

velodog said:


> The bestest best chain lube evar.
> 
> https://silca.cc/products/synergeti...wng&utm_content=100110457&utm_source=hs_email


$25 chain lube. Costs as much as a chain. Will it make my chain last 20K miles instead of 10K miles?


----------



## duriel (Oct 10, 2013)

used moto motor oil is FREE, FREE, FREE!!!!


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

duriel said:


> used moto motor oil is FREE, FREE, FREE!!!!


We've panicked about this already.


----------



## rudge66 (Apr 1, 2019)

velodog said:


> The bestest best chain lube evar.


 spelled evha 

@ coolhand ... thirty daze in the hole.


----------



## SPlKE (Sep 10, 2007)

Lombard said:


> $25 chain lube. Costs as much as a chain. Will it make my chain last 20K miles instead of 10K miles?


You bet your sweet bippy.


----------



## bvber (Apr 23, 2011)

velodog said:


> The bestest best chain lube evar.
> 
> https://silca.cc/products/synergeti...wng&utm_content=100110457&utm_source=hs_email


Forget Silca. Look how much more weight these other lubes can take!


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

rudge66 said:


> spelled evha
> 
> @ coolhand ... thirty daze in the hole.


No, it's 'evar'. Evha isn't even in the urban dictionary.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

cxwrench said:


> No, it's 'evar'. Evha isn't even in the urban dictionary.


What a surprise. 

Or also... spelled evah. 

But never evha. Ev ha? Doesn't even make sense.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

tlg said:


> What a surprise.
> 
> Or also... spelled evah.
> 
> But never evha. Ev ha? Doesn't even make sense.


*Spoon - Don't You Evah:*


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Lube schlube.

https://cyclingtips.com/2020/11/new-motion-labs-dual-engagement-chain/


----------



## duriel (Oct 10, 2013)

uh oh.....


https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/absoluteblack-launches-a-cheaper-graphene-lubricant/


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

duriel said:


> uh oh.....
> 
> 
> https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/absoluteblack-launches-a-cheaper-graphene-lubricant/


They won't let me in unless I remove my ad blocker. F**k them.


----------



## bvber (Apr 23, 2011)

Maybe it's your internet provider? Mine shows continue with ad blocker option.

BTW, do they offer unsweetened version? It's shopping season so I thought I would...


----------



## rudge66 (Apr 1, 2019)

*Bar and Chain Oil*

Chain Saw Lube?

I just bought a Cordless Badger Chain Saw. Great saw Great price...
on Ebay.
Saw ( the saw ) arrived _sans huile_ ...without oil.

So, Wilma and Betty went to Lowes and bought a quart of 
ECHO Bar N Chain Lube. 

Well...
Sticky Stuff.. But thin.
Between maple syrup / honey and Cotton Candy.

Stringy between the fingers. Repels water. Slippery as Betty's beaver .
And ...Tacky like hot caramel!

Oh. the smell is like a Sram Chain , fresh from the package.

Lu Ba Du Ba Doo.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

MFNATIK said:


> Sorry I didn't read all 15 pages of this thread, but where does *Boeshield T9* stack up?


I can't say I've heard of this one, but there are so many lubes out there that practically nobody has heard of them all.

My take is that just about any oil based "wet lube" will work well. Wax based "dry lubes" claim to attract less dirt, however, I have not found this to be the case and they just don't lubricate the chain as well as oil based wet lubes.

I have been using a homemade lube made of 50% synthetic motor oil and 50% mineral spirits. I got over 6,000 miles out of my last chain and the only reason I changed it was because it had a stiff link I couldn't work loose. The chain itself had no measurable wear! I re-lube every 500 miles or if I get caught in rain or wet roads.

The method used to lube your chain makes a difference too. I put a drop individually on each roller. Then I run the chain backwards while wiping the chain clean with a rag. Then I wipe the chain again after the 1st ride.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

MFNATIK said:


> Awesome. Thanks for confirming your method. That's how I do it too. *But I do let the lube sit at least 2 hrs before I do the wipe and ride.* Boeshield is made by Boeing for lubing whatever airplane parts that don't cause sudden crashes (poor joke about the 737 Air Max fiasco).


I wipe right away, but I generally lube after a ride, so it's almost a day between lubing and the next ride. Your method works too.


----------



## xxl (Mar 19, 2002)

rudge66 said:


> ...Slippery as Betty's beaver.
> And ...Tacky like hot caramel!
> 
> Oh. the smell is like a Sram Chain , fresh from the package.
> ...


Does Betty's beaver smell like a SRAM chain fresh from the package?


----------



## rudge66 (Apr 1, 2019)

it was pretty sticky and needed a wipe down. The smell was industrial .


----------



## rudge66 (Apr 1, 2019)

Had noticeably sluggish ride today on my 3 part Rock N R Gold to I part Echo ChainSaw experiment. 
Whats up?


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

rudge66 said:


> Had noticeably sluggish ride today on my 3 part Rock N R Gold to I part Echo ChainSaw experiment.
> Whats up?


3 parts chainsaw oil and 1 part Rock n Roll Gold would work better. 👍


----------



## rudge66 (Apr 1, 2019)

Lombard said:


> 3 parts chainsaw oil and 1 part Rock n Roll Gold would work better. 👍


Maybe I was thinking the same , but my ride today felt like I was in the mud.


----------



## ogre (Dec 16, 2005)

rudge66 said:


> Had noticeably sluggish ride today on my 3 part Rock N R Gold to I part Echo ChainSaw experiment.
> Whats up?





rudge66 said:


> Maybe I was thinking the same , but my ride today felt like I was in the mud.


And you attribute this to a difference in your chain lube?


----------



## rudge66 (Apr 1, 2019)

ogre said:


> And you attribute this to a difference in your chain lube?


I do. and I don't know what to think .
First I felt my fit off because I wore a Mavic thermal bib with a _very _thick 2cm pad.
I rode a different bike ( BMC Road Machine Two105 ) . Usually when I transition to the BMC the ride is a blast... I get a positive energy ride. A boost. 
I had to lowered my seat half into the ride Ok thick pad. 
All my gearing and pace was way off, I was off... my bike felt way off .

I just cleaned the chain with Liquid Wrench. and then did R&RG 3 with Echo 1 .

Is this combo part of my problem ?


----------



## xxl (Mar 19, 2002)

rudge66 said:


> I do. and I don't know what to think .
> First I felt my fit off because I wore a Mavic thermal bib with a _very _thick 2cm pad.
> I rode a different bike ( BMC Road Machine Two105 ) . Usually when I transition to the BMC the ride is a blast... I get a positive energy ride. A boost.
> I had to lowered my seat half into the ride Ok thick pad.
> ...


I think Betty's heady aroma may have affected you more than you realize.

It's pretty industrial.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

xxl said:


> I think Betty's heady aroma may have affected you more than you realize.
> 
> It's pretty industrial.


Congrats on becoming a Super Moderator, xxl! I bet that came with a big pay raise!


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Lombard said:


> Congrats on becoming a Super Moderator, xxl! I bet that came with a big pay raise!


Fake election
Widespread voter fraud


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Bump. I love a good dredge.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

Lombard said:


> Bump. I love a good dredge.


These once and for all type threads last pretty much forever


----------



## mackgoo (Mar 2, 2004)

White litenin. It's great.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

mackgoo said:


> White litenin. It's great.


Great at everything except lubricating chains.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

DaveG said:


> These once and for all type threads last pretty much forever


But they still sometimes need a jump start.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Since the "Once and for all" disc vs. rim brake thread just got bumped, it is only fair that I bump this one too. 😈


----------



## Paceliner (25 d ago)

Used to use Pedro's Synlube a long time ago, but 3-in-1 oil has been my go-to for years. I like to switch to dry lube (I use Blaster's) in the winter when my bike is on the trainer--no oil stains.


----------



## No Time Toulouse (Sep 7, 2016)

Lombard said:


> Since the "Once and for all" disc vs. rim brake thread just got bumped, it is only fair that I bump this one too. 😈


Kinda like that scene in Goodfellas........."I've got a leg!!!...."


----------



## No Time Toulouse (Sep 7, 2016)

Paceliner said:


> Used to use Pedro's Synlube a long time ago, but 3-in-1 oil has been my go-to for years. I like to switch to dry lube (I use Blaster's) in the winter when my bike is on the trainer--no oil stains.


As far as 'non-standard' oils go, 3-in-1 is pretty good, albeit rather thin (and probably collects a lot of dirt). Homebrew is cheaper and usually a bit thicker.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

No Time Toulouse said:


> As far as 'non-standard' oils go, 3-in-1 is pretty good, albeit rather thin (and probably collects a lot of dirt). Homebrew is cheaper and usually a bit thicker.


I would say 3 in 1 is sticky and actually too thick.

Homebrew is as thick as you make it, hence the name homebrew.


----------



## SPlKE (Sep 10, 2007)

Aw geez. I keep trying to leave, but they keep pulling me back in!


----------



## Paceliner (25 d ago)

Lombard said:


> I would say 3 in 1 is sticky and actually too thick.
> 
> Homebrew is as thick as you make it, hence the name homebrew.


3-in-1 oil is actually thinner than the old Pedro's Synlube Road I used to purchase. It is also very long wearing. I have never had to lube the chain more than once between cleanings, and rain doesn't really bother it because it IS an oil. I've always been a fan of oil-based chain lubes. The added bit of maintenance is worth it IMHO.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

SPlKE said:


> Aw geez. I keep trying to leave, but they keep pulling me back in!


No sense in fighting your urge to be here. You were meant to be part of the ultimate chain lube thread of chain lube threads. Roll with it, my friend!

What again do chains crave?


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Paceliner said:


> 3-in-1 oil is actually thinner than the old Pedro's Synlube Road I used to purchase. It is also very long wearing. I have never had to lube the chain more than once between cleanings, and rain doesn't really bother it because it IS an oil. I've always been a fan of oil-based chain lubes. The added bit of maintenance is worth it IMHO.


Cleanings? The only cleaning my chain ever gets is a wipe down after each lube every 500 miles. My chain doesn't come off the bike until it's time to change it. The chain I'm using now has over 6,000 miles on it and still has plenty of life left. I use a 50/50 solution of motor oil and mineral spirits. Any oil based "wet lube" will work just as well - no better, no worse.


----------

