|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Chain waxing + graphite question
On 15 Feb 2006 06:33:35 GMT, wrote:
John Forrest Tomlinson writes: This is an old method here on wreck.bike, the extreme case being one where at the end of an instructional essay, the writer adds, "that's right isn't it?" when in fact the whole posting was a question in disguise. Of course we also frequently get the situation where someone asks a question directly and you denounce them for making a statement and pretending it's a question.... Maybe you can dig one of these up and show how that was. You did it to me. I asked about something that was probably not true but was genuinely curious if maybe it was true, and you came back with comments about how it was obviously untrue, and that I was spreading myth, etc. And I think there was some random dig at some other type of person, like the little addition you made about guys in November or whatever. I can't readily find that example, but below is another one I think you are confusing rude four letter words and insinuations of dementia with the terse responses I often give to postings that are like the frozen water bottle types, obvious fabrications. In (Jobst Brandt) writes: Travis Thom writes: I used to work with someone who used linseed oil as a spoke prep. when wheelbuilding. *After eight years, the wheels he built for me are still serviceable and the spokes stay put. *I want to build some wheels, and would like to try the oil. *Does anyone know if I should use raw or boiled linseed oil? That depends on whether under a full or new moon. *What exactly did he tell you that this 'tossing of salt over the left shoulder' did for the wheel and how did it do this? Well? Linseed oil is just so much salt over the shoulder. No, it's not. It doesn't work but reasonable people *know* salt over the shoulder is superstition. Reasonable but ignorant people (I was in this category) who don't understand how wheels work can think that linseed oil works. We (mistakenly) believe it has practical value. So when we ask it is works, or even say that it works, the appropriate response is to simply tell them it doesn't work, not to mock us by equating a flawed understanding with superstition. Your occasional posts where you simply post a link to your responses to FAQs at Sheldon Browns site are terse. But sometimes you go out of your way to make fun of people for acting a question. [details on why spoke prep and linseed oil are not needed snipped] You really don't understand what I'm talking about, so I'll try to explain it again. I'm not commenting at all on the use of linseed oil or spoke prep. I'm commenting on that fact that because someone else doesn't understand something as well as you, you often feel the need to claim they have some desire for superstition, rather than simply being ignorant. Those two thigns are not the same. Step back for a minute and think about it. I'm still looking for my denunciation of someone for asking a reasonable question. You may be less sensitive to trolls than I am. You're mistaken if you think these people are all trolls. And if you truly think they are trolls, just don't answer. JT **************************** Remove "remove" to reply Visit http://www.jt10000.com **************************** |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Chain waxing + graphite question
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 08:35:33 -0800, Mike DeMicco
wrote: Doesn't wax dissolve in alcohol? Parrafin doesn't dissolve well in ethanonl. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Chain waxing + graphite question
bill wrote:
I have broken too many chains to count, on a standard racing bike. It is annoying. It all started when Sedisport was retired and I started buying "Sachs" chains. So I started replacing every 5,000 miles, whether "worn" or not. Now I ride Dura-Ace or Crampygoslow Chorus as appropriate. Frankly I couldn't care less about the chain stretch. If it works, it works. Just as long as it isn't breaking. And the stretch doesn't tell you anything about fatigue life and so why bother measuring it? That's odd. I have broken a chain only once in years of cycling (probably where I joined it badly). I weigh 230 and use the most inexpensive chains I can find (Sachs/SRAM PC-48 usually). I use the same chains on road & MTB, chain loads are much greater with small chainrings (22T on MTB). Chains wear and change pitch predictably. I don't see fatigue as an issue. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Chain waxing + graphite question
HarryB wrote:
I think I grasp somewhat the reasoning behind measuring the distance between pins rather than between rollers. But, Lennard Zinn in the latest version of his book "Zinn & The Art of Road Bike Maintenance" writes: "The most reliable way to see whether the chain is worn out is to employ a chain-elongation gauge, such as the model make by Rohloff." I don't recall reading that Zinn passes along myths and that I should be on the lookout for "axiomatic proclamations" which would get me into trouble if I followed them. Zinn is wrong, a Rohloff tool is *not* the "most reliable" way to check chains. That is an example of one of his "axiomatic proclamations". I use a 12" steel ruler and measure from the front edge of a pin to the front edge of a pin 12" away. A new chain should line up perfectly on the ruler. By the time a chain has worn enough that the ruler lines up on the rear edge of a pin, the chain is worn out, the diameter of a pin being approximately the allowable elongation over 12" (if you want to be conservative you could change a bit earlier). As for cleaning, a poster on this NG did an experiment a while back where he cleaned half the chain an left the other half only wiped. He didn't find any difference in wear. Despite all the claims about various rituals, no one has taken the time to repeat the experiment. I don't bother cleaning chains any more, myself. As for the "dirty chain" problem, there are many solutions (for those who are bothered) including off-the-shelf wax-based lubes like White Lightning, which pretty much solve the cosmetic problem. If you want to "shake & bake" or "dip & fry" chains, be my guest, but I think these rituals are just that. As for your tandem timing chain wearing out prematurely, I'd hesitate before accusing the seller of stiffing you with a pre-worn chain, it may be that the timing chain was badly adjusted (or the rings eccentrically mounted, etc.). If the Park tool works better for you with your eyesight problems, then it's a worthwhile tool, but for most of us it's not a good choice since it's $30 and not guaranteed to be more accurate (or quicker) than a ruler -- IOW, a solution looking for a problem. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Chain waxing + graphite question
Steven Scharf writes:
It really isn't that big of a deal if one gets it down to a ritual: Remove chain from bike and drop in cleaner (Simple Green.) Remove from cleaner, rinse in hot water and put into deep fryer. Be careful using simple green to clean your chain... http://www.velonews.com/tech/report/...es/9216.0.html Good article. As one of the writers wrote, "Since the main ingredient is water, I would not recommend soaking a chain in it." Frankly I am amazed that people would actually use water to clean a chain, it's a very bad idea. You can dry the outside, but water remains inside, in the worst possible area. You want to use a non-water based solvent such as kerosene. I suppose in that vein, you never ride when roads are wet. Chains run well in water, the only problem is that when the road dries, so does the chain and then it squeaks for lack of a lubricant. There are many ways of drying a chain and the rusting rate is slow enough that it is immaterial to its well being. Your admonition falls close to the questions on how to keep chains from rusting on the bicycle, a non problem for people who ride rather than park the bicycle outdoors. Well I walk when it rains too, but I don't intentionally submerge my shoes into a bucket of water. That may be, but the bicycle chain does not have that option. It eats road water at a great rate as water from the front wheel strikes the BB and splashes to the side in a steady spray. Just look at the downtube after a ride on a wet road and note the accumulation of sand. That isn't what the chain waxer and toothbrush cleaner visualizes. I really agree with what Jobst Brandt wrote, advising to clean the chain in kerosene or a commercial solvent, to use a motorcycle chain lube for lubrication, and to avoid wax. Not sure what he meant by "commercial solvent" but I assume it's a non-water based solvent. Commercial solvents used in automotive parts cleaning are petroleum based. I find cleaning the chain on the bike is more effective, though it takes several solvent changes before the solvent runs clean (though the same is the case with soaking and agitating it). This also washes the derailleur idler wheels of any lubricant in their bearings. Having the links and pins in motion through the solvent helps to get the internal dirt out. I think you have the wrong picture in mind. The dirt inside the chain is fine granite dust and metal powder that is not caked in place. If you disassemble a dirty chain I think you'll see that it contains a fine grey/black residue that is easily washed away by immersion and sloshing the chain around in the wash tank. Caked on external dirt is the part that is hard to dislodge and that is best done by a stiff parts cleaning brush in a wash tank having a perforated false bottom. Jobst Brandt |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Chain waxing + graphite question
John Forrest Tomlinson writes:
Well? Linseed oil is just so much salt over the shoulder. No, it's not. It doesn't work but reasonable people *know* salt over the shoulder is superstition. Reasonable but ignorant people (I was in this category) who don't understand how wheels work can think that linseed oil works. We (mistakenly) believe it has practical value. So when we ask it is works, or even say that it works, the appropriate response is to simply tell them it doesn't work, not to mock us by equating a flawed understanding with superstition. Your occasional posts where you simply post a link to your responses to FAQs at Sheldon Browns site are terse. But sometimes you go out of your way to make fun of people for acting a question. I think you don't understand. As I said these posts are trolls that have all the earmarks of telling us something the writer doesn't understand and done in a smug manner. My response takes that issue to task. If you look at what the person wrote, like the one about how linseed oil made his wheels last a long time, there is a message there that doesn't merit passing on as fact and the writer knows it. [details on why spoke prep and linseed oil are not needed snipped] You really don't understand what I'm talking about, so I'll try to explain it again. I'm not commenting at all on the use of linseed oil or spoke prep. I'm commenting on that fact that because someone else doesn't understand something as well as you, you often feel the need to claim they have some desire for superstition, rather than simply being ignorant. Those two things are not the same. Step back for a minute and think about it. I think you don't see beyond the linseed oil. The tone of that post, as others, is that this is the solution to some specific problem when in fact the person writing has no evidence that it is so. Passing on naivete as fact is bluster at best. If you like that, it's your choice. I'm still looking for my denunciation of someone for asking a reasonable question. You may be less sensitive to trolls than I am. You're mistaken if you think these people are all trolls. And if you truly think they are trolls, just don't answer. Ah yes, but the misinformation that rest of the newsgroup gets is worth a response. That you don't see the damage these intentional and unintentional trolls cause, is what keeps the level of BS in bicycling high. Re-read the linseed oil item and consider what message it gave. Jobst Brandt |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Chain waxing + graphite question
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 10:15:36 -0500, Peter Cole
wrote: HarryB wrote: I think I grasp somewhat the reasoning behind measuring the distance between pins rather than between rollers. But, Lennard Zinn in the latest version of his book "Zinn & The Art of Road Bike Maintenance" writes: "The most reliable way to see whether the chain is worn out is to employ a chain-elongation gauge, such as the model make by Rohloff." I don't recall reading that Zinn passes along myths and that I should be on the lookout for "axiomatic proclamations" which would get me into trouble if I followed them. Zinn is wrong, a Rohloff tool is *not* the "most reliable" way to check chains. That is an example of one of his "axiomatic proclamations". Didn't *you* just make an "axiomatic proclamation"? You offered no proof that he is wrong. As a newbie to many of these discussions I'm confused about this "axiomatic proclamation" business. One can hardly expect an author to justify each and every statement he makes. In reference to Zinn's book, Jobst Brandt wrote, "If you read the tone of such a book and find axiomatic proclamations with no reasoning for the claims, you should be wary of its claims. I prefer seeing stated what the method is, why it should be used and a test by which you can prove it to yourself." Well, how about this example: Zinn also writes, without any proof, "The distance between these rivets should be 12 inches exactly. If it is 12 1/8 inches or greater, replace the chain..." Isn't that also an "axiomatic proclamation"? He doesn't offer any proof for this statement. He does explain the effects of excessive wear on the chainrings and cogs, but doesn't explain why 12 1/8" and not, let's say 12 1/2", is the replacement point. Has Zinn also been taken to task for this "axiomatic proclamation", or is it that since most people seem to agree with that statement they don't apply the same standard as when they disagree? IOW, the "axiomatic proclamation" test is not applied uniformly? I use a 12" steel ruler and measure from the front edge of a pin to the front edge of a pin 12" away. A new chain should line up perfectly on the ruler. By the time a chain has worn enough that the ruler lines up on the rear edge of a pin, the chain is worn out, the diameter of a pin being approximately the allowable elongation over 12" (if you want to be conservative you could change a bit earlier). As for cleaning, a poster on this NG did an experiment a while back where he cleaned half the chain an left the other half only wiped. He didn't find any difference in wear. Despite all the claims about various rituals, no one has taken the time to repeat the experiment. I don't bother cleaning chains any more, myself. As for the "dirty chain" problem, there are many solutions (for those who are bothered) including off-the-shelf wax-based lubes like White Lightning, which pretty much solve the cosmetic problem. If you want to "shake & bake" or "dip & fry" chains, be my guest, but I think these rituals are just that. I have tried other methods of lubricating and found that overall they are more work than the hot wax method I use to accomplish my goals. As for your tandem timing chain wearing out prematurely, I'd hesitate before accusing the seller of stiffing you with a pre-worn chain, it may be that the timing chain was badly adjusted (or the rings eccentrically mounted, etc.). In retrospect there are other factors which lead me to this unfortunate conclusion. I won't mention them here because they are irrelevant to this discussion but I doubt I will ever purchase another bike from this dealer. That will be a hardship for me since tandem dealers are few and far between and we will have to drive hundreds of miles to the next nearest dealer. If the Park tool works better for you with your eyesight problems, then it's a worthwhile tool, but for most of us it's not a good choice since it's $30 and not guaranteed to be more accurate (or quicker) than a ruler -- IOW, a solution looking for a problem. I paid a lot less than that, but the price of this tool is irrelevant - the question is about it's accuracy. As I have already indicated in a couple of other posts, I have found that when I checked the CC-2's readings against a ruler's, the results have been comparable. No one has yet shown me any data which meets the "axiomatic proclamation" standard as articulated by Jobst Brandt. IOW, I have read a bunch of theory, but I have not read of anyone who has actually checked the accuracy of the CC-2 against a ruler. I would welcome reviewing such a test. Until I have seen such a test, I must draw the conclusion that the allegation that Park Tool's CC-2 is inaccurate is an axiomatic proclamation. Harry |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Chain waxing + graphite question
On 14 Feb 2006 12:14:16 -0800, "bill" wrote:
HarryB wrote: On 14 Feb 2006 02:05:33 GMT, Mike DeMicco wrote: HarryB wrote in news:s99uu114jtobbgfismqv2mbl60irmhagc0@ 4ax.com: I'm going to spend some time researching this because I run expensive chains on our tandem and don't want to waste money by replacing them more or less often than necessary. The LBS measured my chain with the Rohloff gage and told me that the chain and cassette were worn out. The 10 speed Shimano chain had only a few thousand miles on it, and I am careful to keep it clean and lubed. Of course I did not believe it and measured it with a ruler when I got home. It was hardly worn at all; well short of the commonly accepted 12-1/16" measurement that determines a worn out chain. Anyone using the Rohloff gage is going to be wasting a lot of money on buying new chains, IMO. If you do a search on Google groups you will find this topic has been discussed at length in the past. I was caught by surprise to discover that there is controversy about how to determine chain wear. It's just not something that I as a newbie expected. Once again I'm learning something new. That is part of what makes life so interesting. Harry Chains wear out. cogs wear out. Non-lubed chains wear out faster. Wax is not a lube, it is a surface protectant. When your chain starts skipping, relace the chain and the freewheel cogset at the same time. I don't know if wax is a lubricant or a protectant, nor do I much care about the details. What I do know is that in my limited experience, my waxed chains last longer between waxings than other methods of lubricating I have used. Additionally, I am getting excellent mileage from my waxed chains. I plan on replacing my chains when they wear to the point which is recommended to protect the cogs and chainwheels as much as possible and don't see any need to replace the cogs and chainwheels until they are worn. Tandems overload normal bicycle chains. Too much load. That is why they break. Two people pulling on one chain. Can't agree. Good quality tandems are engineered to deal with the additional load. Good quality chains apparently are perfectly capable of handling the load of two riders, even two strong riders (which we are not.) And AFAIK, even people who ride triples and quads use normal drive chains. After a while, you will notice that bicycles are not rationally engineered. They are cobbled together, and that "standards" are merely defaults, not well thought out. I have broken too many chains to count, on a standard racing bike. It is annoying. It all started when Sedisport was retired and I started buying "Sachs" chains. So I started replacing every 5,000 miles, whether "worn" or not. Now I ride Dura-Ace or Crampygoslow Chorus as appropriate. Frankly I couldn't care less about the chain stretch. If it works, it works. Just as long as it isn't breaking. And the stretch doesn't tell you anything about fatigue life and so why bother measuring it? I don't accept the idea that when a good quality chain breaks under "normal" riding conditions that it is the fault of the rider(s). When we recently broke our drive chain on a rather steep (for us) hill, I could not get our LBS to replace it under warranty. However, dealing directly with the importer I have gotten them to agree to replace the chain. They of course didn't admit that the chain was defective, but all I asked is that they replace what I allege to be a defective chain and they agreed to do so. Harry |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Chain waxing + graphite question
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New bicycle idea | Bob Marley | General | 49 | October 7th 04 05:20 AM |
FYI chain question results | dreaded | General | 5 | September 15th 04 09:16 PM |
(different) dumb chain removal question | Jonathan Ives | UK | 16 | October 13th 03 09:48 PM |
Chain driven question | glopal | Unicycling | 5 | September 13th 03 02:04 PM |
dumb chain removal question | Jonathan Ives | UK | 11 | August 31st 03 12:05 AM |