Actual data for the chain cleaning debate

In article , Werehatrack
writes:

It's an Americanism. He may indeed be unfamiliar with it. It refers
to a woman who gets the duty of hauling her kid (and sometimes
multiple others and some of the gear) to afternoon soccer practice.
Since it's in the US, the field is never within walking distance, even
if there is one that *would* be within walking distance. Because the
games are fairly long, the mothers tend to collect at a safe distance
and do anything except watch the game.

That doesn't accurately describe this household's soccer mom. She even coached
a season when the kids were smaller (so did I). With four going on at once we
often had someone bike to their practice afterwhich we could usually pick them
up.

She *always* watched the game, criticized the refs under her breath and cheered
them on.

Tom Gibb

In article ,
(Carl Fogel) writes:

Perhaps we're misunderstanding each other?

I thought that you washed one chain section
washed in solvent once a month and then measured
it--a worn but freshly cleaned chain with far
less crud in its internal parts to tighten it
up, so to speak.

The chain sections were measured after cleaning, by solvent bath or toothbrush.
As a side observation the washed chain seemed looser (laterally) in my hands
after it's cleaning, but I didn't try to quantify that.

The other section, I thought, was never washed
in any significant way, just wiped off with a
rag and brush and then oiled, which would have
no effect on the gritty slime inside the rollers.

Correct. I measured it after that "cleaning" but before I oiled it.

So one chain section was relatively clean inside
when measured and would never have more than a month
of internal build-up.

Right.

Meanwhile the other chain section was never cleaned
internally and eventually accumulated ten months of
gummy, oily paste.

I'd call it six months worth, but yes.

Did I misunderstand your method?

I think not.

I'm negotiating with a local bike shop for a few
truly filthy worn-out chains to measure before and
after cleaning to see if my theory that cleaning
results in elongation.



Tom Gibb

In article ,
(Art Harris) writes:

If Tom still has the chain, perhaps he could now thoroughly clean the
"unwashed" side and see if the elongation increases. That would test
the theory that internal grit caused the wear to appear to be less
than it actually was.

I still do, and I'd be glad to.

Tom, thanks for taking the data and getting us all thinking!

My pleasure.


Tom Gibb

(TBGibb) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Carl Fogel) writes:

Perhaps we're misunderstanding each other?

I thought that you washed one chain section
washed in solvent once a month and then measured
it--a worn but freshly cleaned chain with far
less crud in its internal parts to tighten it
up, so to speak.

The chain sections were measured after cleaning, by solvent bath or toothbrush.
As a side observation the washed chain seemed looser (laterally) in my hands
after it's cleaning, but I didn't try to quantify that.

The other section, I thought, was never washed
in any significant way, just wiped off with a
rag and brush and then oiled, which would have
no effect on the gritty slime inside the rollers.

Correct. I measured it after that "cleaning" but before I oiled it.

So one chain section was relatively clean inside
when measured and would never have more than a month
of internal build-up.

Right.

Meanwhile the other chain section was never cleaned
internally and eventually accumulated ten months of
gummy, oily paste.

I'd call it six months worth, but yes.

Did I misunderstand your method?

I think not.

I'm negotiating with a local bike shop for a few
truly filthy worn-out chains to measure before and
after cleaning to see if my theory that cleaning
results in elongation.



Tom Gibb

Dear Tom,

My first two local bike shops apologized for
having no suitably worn and filthy chains. The
third shop cheerfully provided a modestly dirty
chain from its trash bin.

I took the simple approach, stretched it out on
an 8-foot aluminum extrusion normally used for
cutting off 4x8 plywood, marked the end, and
then gleefully cleaned the bejesus out of it
with solvent.

I stretched it out again and found no apparent
elongation 48 links, which seemed to undermine
my theory rather impressively--until I noticed
that the "worn" chain's pin seemed to hit exactly
on the 48-inch end of one aluminum section.

Re-measuring showed that the damned chain exhibits
no wear over 48 links. Apparently, the bike shop
was throwing away a chain with a few miles and a
little dirt on it.

I was so surprised that I stretched my last badly
worn and cleaned chain out next to it--sure enough,
my worn chain ended up almost a full link longer
within 48 links.

So I'm still waiting for a truly worn and dirty
chain to find out if cleaning leads to instant
elongation.

Carl Fogel

Art Harris wrote:
dvt wrote:
if the unwashed chain has grit filling in the
gap, the gap might stabilize because a growing gap will continue to get
filled with more grit.

If Tom still has the chain, perhaps he could now thoroughly clean the
"unwashed" side and see if the elongation increases. That would test
the theory that internal grit caused the wear to appear to be less
than it actually was.

I was thinking about this during my ride home last night. The bottom
line, as I see it, is *not* how worn the chain is. The bottom line is
how worn does the chain seem to the rest of the drivetrain, right? No
matter how that length is made up, a chain with very little elongation
would not cause undue wear on the sprockets.

So if the dirty chain is really worn but it measures only 1/32
elongation, the rest of the drivetrain sees a chain that is only
slightly worn. The sprockets are preserved.

On the other hand, maybe that dirt and grit would be displaced under the
hundreds of pounds of load exerted on a chain during normal use. Then
the rest of the drivetrain would see a greatly elongated chain.

Tom has provided fodder for a lot of academic-style debate, which is a
great thing IMO. On the other hand, I plan to continue my chain cleaning
technique to keep the rest of the bike clean. As others have pointed
out, the chain is a pretty cheap and expendable piece of equipment.

Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

(Art Harris) wrote in message . com...

[snip]

If Tom still has the chain, perhaps he could now thoroughly clean the
"unwashed" side and see if the elongation increases. That would test
the theory that internal grit caused the wear to appear to be less
than it actually was.

Tom, thanks for taking the data and getting us all thinking!

Art Harris

Dear Art,

Curse you for a sensible, practical fellow!

Wish I'd thought of this before pestering my
local bike shops for a worn, filthy chain,
an item in curiously short supply.

What I foolishly tested without checking turned
out to be an apparently unworn chain with a faint
coating of grime, 48 inches pin-to-pin, both dirty
and clean.

Enviously,

Carl Fogel

In article ,
(Carl Fogel) writes:

Re-measuring showed that the damned chain exhibits
no wear over 48 links. Apparently, the bike shop
was throwing away a chain with a few miles and a
little dirt on it.


So now you have a usable chain. The joke is on who?

I wonder if they insisted on replacing the cassette at the same time . . .?

Tom Gibb

Originally posted by Tbgibb

Conclusions: It isn't worth it to soak a chain out in solvent. I've
stopped doing so, but I will be very careful to measure often. The
presence of my wife Susan (an unbiased observer) in this was essential,
I (she) caught myself (me) seeing more wear in the "unwashed" chain than
in the "washed" one early in the trial.



Sounds like you washed all the grease out of the chain and then didn´t
wait for long enough before applying oil. If the cleaner isn´t given
time to evaporate then there is no way the oil / grease can get into the
interior of the chains moving pieces . On motorbikes we used to clean
the chain in parafin ( kerosen ? ) , safer than petrol but not as
effective , then left it over night to dry , then put it into a can of
hot grease and left for 24 hours . Seemed to work fine .



--

el Inglés wrote in message ...
Originally posted by Tbgibb

Conclusions: It isn't worth it to soak a chain out in solvent. I've
stopped doing so, but I will be very careful to measure often. The
presence of my wife Susan (an unbiased observer) in this was essential,
I (she) caught myself (me) seeing more wear in the "unwashed" chain than
in the "washed" one early in the trial.

I'm sort of coming into the middle of all this but replacing three
chains on my recumbent is pricy.

I make measurements at work. Measuring small differences reliably is
harder than most folks think. Here's a suggestion based on 30 years
years as a chemist.

Experiment #1. Get a new chain. Ride on it till your first cleaning
interval. Break it in half; clean one half with solvent, the other
half with whatever. Rejoin the halves and lube the chain as a whole.
Ride till your next cleaning interval and repeat. Continue for a
year. Now, wipe off the external dirt. All we are interested in at
this point is the chain that the bicycle actually sees. Separate the
two parts and measure the wear of each half *at least* five times,
checking a different part of the chain for each measurement. Average
the measurements and report the chain wear for the solvent cleaned and
otherwise cleaned sections.

Experiment #2. Clean a chain with kerosene. Air dry as usual.
Spread on a baking pan and put in an oven set on "warm". After 30
minutes or so open the oven door and sniff the kerosene fumes. "nuff
said?" When the oven door pops open, releasing a small ball of flame
and a boom your chain is dry and ready to lubricate.

Let us know how your experiments turn out.

Richard

(Richard) wrote in message . com...
el Inglés wrote in message ...
Originally posted by Tbgibb

Conclusions: It isn't worth it to soak a chain out in solvent. I've
stopped doing so, but I will be very careful to measure often. The
presence of my wife Susan (an unbiased observer) in this was essential,
I (she) caught myself (me) seeing more wear in the "unwashed" chain than
in the "washed" one early in the trial.

I'm sort of coming into the middle of all this but replacing three
chains on my recumbent is pricy.

I make measurements at work. Measuring small differences reliably is
harder than most folks think. Here's a suggestion based on 30 years
years as a chemist.

Experiment #1. Get a new chain. Ride on it till your first cleaning
interval. Break it in half; clean one half with solvent, the other
half with whatever. Rejoin the halves and lube the chain as a whole.
Ride till your next cleaning interval and repeat. Continue for a
year. Now, wipe off the external dirt. All we are interested in at
this point is the chain that the bicycle actually sees. Separate the
two parts and measure the wear of each half *at least* five times,
checking a different part of the chain for each measurement. Average
the measurements and report the chain wear for the solvent cleaned and
otherwise cleaned sections.

Experiment #2. Clean a chain with kerosene. Air dry as usual.
Spread on a baking pan and put in an oven set on "warm". After 30
minutes or so open the oven door and sniff the kerosene fumes. "nuff
said?" When the oven door pops open, releasing a small ball of flame
and a boom your chain is dry and ready to lubricate.

Let us know how your experiments turn out.

Richard


Dear Richard,

Assuming equal-length chain-halves, no measuring will
be needed. Just stretch the two pieces of chain out
side by side and see which is longer.

Carl Fogel