Actual data for the chain cleaning debate

"TBGibb" wrote in message
...
To interject some real data into the chain lubrication debate I devised
the
following method for comparing two methods.

I was prepared to take SRAM to task for advocating cleaning chains by
wiping
them down with some kind of degreaser on the rag (trying to sell extra
chains
are you?) HA! or NOT!

Duh.

People get too anal about chain cleaning and spend way too much time and
money on it. The funny thing is that they often don't even clean the chain
propery or lube the chain correctly when they are done cleaning it. Wiping
with a rag then oiling it with foaming motorcycle chain lube is more than
sufficient.

If you want to get the chain really, really clean, then put it repeatedly
through a chain cleaner with fresh non-water based solvent, until the
solvent is clean; simply soaking it in solvent does little, you want the
links in motion as they pass through the solvent. Then soak it in chain saw
oil or spray with motorcycle chain lube.

On 6 Jan 2004 06:02:40 -0800, (Art Harris) may have
said:

This data indicates that NOT washing the chain in solvent doubles
chain life. How do you explain that?

I think that the point was to collect data, not necessarily to explain
it in his case.

I can think of some possible factors that may be involved. First, as
you touch on farther down, the washing may have removed the original
packing lube and eliminated the benefit provided by its presence.
Second, if the solvent stripped the lube completely, and the
reapplication was not getting into all of the pivots properly, then
the "washed" chain may have been operating partially dry. Third, some
dirt's presence between the side plates may have been acting to reduce
the amount of fresh grit getting to the pivots; dirt protecing against
dirt intrusion, as it were. Fourth, if the solvent was not drying out
completely before the oil was applied, the solvent may have reduced
the lube's effectiveness. There are probably other things that I
haven't thought of as well.

Chain "stretch" is caused by wear
on the pins. Washing in solvent should remove internal grit better
than scrubbing with a toothbrush, and therefore result in longer life.

Should, but...

Are you sure you didn't mislabel the two chain halves? Also, just out
of curiosity, did you leave the original packing grease on when the
chain was installed?

If the SRAM lube (which has been identified, and can be purchased in
cases of 12 400ml cans for a bit over $20 per can) was present on both
chain segments when the test started, and was effectively removed at
first cleaning from the "washed" chain but *not* from the "unwashed",
then I would say that the conditions did not, in fact, represent a
single-variant test. It is still interesting, though. It would be
even more interesting to re-do the test with a pair of chain pieces
which had both been washed (and dried) *before* being put on, and
which were lubed *solely* with the same lube from that point onward.
If the "washed" chain were also permitted to completely dry so that no
solvent remained before the lube was reapplied, this would reduce the
variables to one; the cleaning method. I'm not sure which way I would
predict the outcome of a re-test as described. At this point,
however, I believe that there is reason to avoid stripping the SRAM
factory lube from a chain, based on the test performed.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something,
it's also possible that I'm busy.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Art Harris wrote:

Are you sure you didn't mislabel the two chain halves?

I don't think it would matter. No matter how you clean either half of the
chain, the dirt probably becomes evenly distributed after awhile. It rubs onto
the cogs and chainrings, and then back into the chain all around. IOW, I don't
think this is much of a test.

Also, just out
of curiosity, did you leave the original packing grease on when the
chain was installed?

I don't think that would matter either. The original packing grease is as good
a lube as any.

Matt O.

Bruni wrote:

The folks at Rholoff advised much as your results indicated. The
reasoning was that the lube deep in the bush/pin interface is not
that contaminated that removing it does more good than harm since
reintroducing lube deep in the recesses is often incomplete.

I'd take that with a grain of salt.

This is
particularly true as the carrier solvent (not in bar oil) content of
some lubes is quite high.

Oil will do a fine job wetting out on its own. It doesn't need carrier solvent,
unless it's not primarily oil but wax.

Matt O.

The folks at Rholoff advised much as your results indicated. The reasoning
was that the lube deep in the bush/pin interface is not that contaminated
that removing it does more good than harm since reintroducing lube deep in
the recesses is often incomplete. This is particularly true as the carrier
solvent (not in bar oil) content of some lubes is quite high.
Tom

--
Bruni Bicycles
"Where art meets science"
brunibicycles.com
410.426.3420
Art Harris wrote in message
om...
TBGibb wrote:
Results:

Date Miles Elongation Elongation
of washed of unwashed
chain chain
01/05/04 2739.52 1/16" 1/32"


This data indicates that NOT washing the chain in solvent doubles
chain life. How do you explain that? Chain "stretch" is caused by wear
on the pins. Washing in solvent should remove internal grit better
than scrubbing with a toothbrush, and therefore result in longer life.

Are you sure you didn't mislabel the two chain halves? Also, just out
of curiosity, did you leave the original packing grease on when the
chain was installed?

Art Harris

(TBGibb) wrote in message ...

[snip]


Date Miles Elongation Elongation Notes
of washed of unwashed
chain chain
07/11/03 0
07/14/03 137.1 0 0 Dusty and
noisy
07/23/03 328.6 1/64 1/64 Dusty and
slightly noisy
08/01/03 607.24 1/64 1/64
08/11/03 819.71 1/64 1/64
09/02/03 1076.67 1/64 1/32
rain
09/19/03 1430.39 1/64 1/32
noisy
10/23/03 1801.17 3/64 1/32

11/07/03 2257.55 3/64 1/32

01/05/04 2739.52 1/16 1/32
Very dirty and noisy


[snip]

Dear Tom,

I suspect that rather more frequent cleaning is needed
to make any noticeable difference. Your table suggests
that one chain was cleaned roughly every 250-300 miles,
once a month. Fresh oil on a clean chain becomes black
with road grit within fifteen miles, as I discover almost
every day.

As for the actual measurements, they seem to show twice
as much elongation for the cleaned chain after 2700 miles,
2/32" for the cleaned chain section versus only 1/32" for
the uncleaned section.

Possibly the cleaning allowed far more grit to enter the
deeper parts of the cleaned section and it wore twice as
fast.

But another explanation is that the measurements were
inherently inaccurate--a used chain will always be
longer after cleaning because the solvent removes most
of the minute layer of gritty lubricant between the pins
and rollers. (This is why cleaning an extremely worn and
filthy chain can be disastrous--the nicely cleaned chain
may start to skip because it has abruptly elongated,
while the worn gear teeth that matched it are still the
same.)

In a stretched 12-link section, there are 24 points of
contact between pins and rollers. To account for the
extra 1/32" difference requires removing an interior
layer of oily grime amounting to only about a thousandth
of an inch. That is, 1/32" is about 0.0313 inches. A
twenty-fourth of this tiny width is only 0.0013 inches.

You can check the difference by using a pair of 6-inch
dial calipers to measure not from pin center to pin
center (inaccurate at this level) but from link end
to link end (they don't wear and the caliper ends snug
up nicely and repeatably with the thumb-roller clutch).

I think that you'll find that the calipers show that
the same section of worn, dirty chain lengthens when
cleaned because the pins are freer to rattle with the
layer of oily grime removed.

Carl Fogel

Rick Onanian wrote:

It all certainly supports my habit of just adding lube and then
buying a chain when I need one -- why spend so many hours over the
life of the chain when a new one is $25?

$25??!! Nashbar has the HG-53 9-sp chain on sale for $9.95

Art Harris

Werehatrack wrote:

Also, just out
of curiosity, did you leave the original packing grease on when the
chain was installed?

If the SRAM lube (which has been identified, and can be purchased in
cases of 12 400ml cans for a bit over $20 per can) was present on both
chain segments when the test started, and was effectively removed at
first cleaning from the "washed" chain but *not* from the "unwashed",
then I would say that the conditions did not, in fact, represent a
single-variant test. It is still interesting, though. It would be
even more interesting to re-do the test with a pair of chain pieces
which had both been washed (and dried) *before* being put on, and
which were lubed *solely* with the same lube from that point onward.
If the "washed" chain were also permitted to completely dry so that no
solvent remained before the lube was reapplied, this would reduce the
variables to one; the cleaning method. I'm not sure which way I would
predict the outcome of a re-test as described. At this point,
however, I believe that there is reason to avoid stripping the SRAM
factory lube from a chain, based on the test performed.

Some good points there. Yes, the chain needs to be completely dried after
cleaning. I usuallly whip it around (outdoors) and thenm either let it
hang in a dry place or use a hair dryer.

As for re-lubing, perhaps the chain needs to be immersed in oil to ensure
adequate penetration.

Since I don't do much rain riding, I've been tending to not remove the
chain unless it's really grimey. My thinking has been that if cleaning the
chain in solvent only extends its life a little, it's not worth it. If it
actually shortens chain life, it's really not worth it!

So Tom, did you leave the packing grease on both halves of the chain at
the start?

Art Harris

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 18:18:18 GMT, Harris
wrote:
Rick Onanian wrote:
It all certainly supports my habit of just adding lube and then
buying a chain when I need one -- why spend so many hours over the
life of the chain when a new one is $25?

$25??!! Nashbar has the HG-53 9-sp chain on sale for $9.95

Somebody else in this thread had said $25, and I think that's what
an Ultegra 9 speed chain costs at my LBS, if I'm in some sort of a
hurry and don't want to wait for Nashbar to ship it.

At $10, it's so disposable that there's REALLY no reason whatsoever
to clean a chain, unless you put on a really huge amount of miles.
There's barely a reason to lube it -- mostly so it doesn't squeak.

Art Harris
--
Rick Onanian

TBGibb wrote:

To interject some real data into the chain lubrication debate I devised the
following method for comparing two methods.

Did you get all the solvent out afterwards? I wash in strong detergent,
rinse and dry the chain in the oven or on a hot pipe before re-oiling it
- otherwise the solvent will mix with, and dilute, the oil. I get at
least 3-4,000 miles out of a touring bike chain in mucky British
conditions, which seems pretty good to me. I clean it when it starts
looking really bad - every 4-500 miles.