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.

Jobst Brandt

Mike DeMicco wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:



If there's a detriment to waxing the chain, this is it. Even my
non-dip torch method, easy as it is, is a little too cumbersome for a
long tour.


Doesn't wax dissolve in alcohol? Why not dissolve wax in denatured
alcohol and place in a squeeze bottle? When applied to the chain, the
dissolved solution penetrates the chain, the alcohol quickly evaporates
and the wax remains. Disclaimer: I have not tried this but remember
reading this somewhere sometime long ago.



Like with this wax based lube I use:

http://www.supremeblack.nl/

sorry it is in Dutch.

Lou, using a torch? Geez give me a break.
--
Posted by news://news.nb.nu

wrote:
Lou Holtman writes:


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.


You are correct, the Rohloff gage doesn't measure accurate on a
Shimano 10 speed chain. Much, much too pessimistic. I found out
that it measures correctly on a Campagnolo C10, C9, Connex 9 speed
and a SRAM PC59. Before replacing I always double check the Rohloff
measurement comparing the used chain with a new one, that is always
standing by.


So why do you go to the trouble and expense of using such a gauge? I
suppose inch graduated measuring devices are scarce in Europe but
holding a ruler next to the chain while it is on the bicycle is a
trivial exercise. Stanley steel tapes (graduated in both mm and
inches) are inexpensive while hardware store gratis yard sticks are
even less expensive locally. I suppose that doesn't seem scientific
enough for an expensive bicycle chain. Chains cost less when buying
SRAM chains in bulk as bicycle shops do.


It has nothing to do with cost or something scientific. I think it is
more convenient (I don't have to look for my glasses ie.). You use your
method, I use mine. It's no trouble at all (for me). Inch graduated
measuring devices are not scarce here in Europe except for steel rulers.

Lou
--
Posted by news://news.nb.nu

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.

Tandems overload normal bicycle chains. Too much load. That is why
they break. Two people pulling on one chain. 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?

wrote in message
...
Steven Scharf writes:

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.

Except we rode our tandem into town on Saturday, and by the time I was done
and heading home it had a couple of inches of snow on it, and the chain was
looking fairly rusty the next morning (parked in the garage) when I went to
re-lube it...

On 14 Feb 2006 17:04:51 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

JT

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?



****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

aka Jobst Brandt wrote:
...
I don't like to read BS such as rulers and yard sticks being too
inaccurate to measure chain wear as an excuse for doing things the
hard way. You can posture about that but you know that is BS. What
does B stand for by the way, or is that embarrassing? We know that
jim beam is a whiskey rather than a human, although the alias is used
by a participant in this forum.

On occasion, "jim beam's" contentions could make one think it was the
Kentucky Bourbon talking.

I would be remiss if I failed to point out that
" is an email address and not a
human being.

--
Tom Sherman

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:13:50 GMT, Paul Kopit
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 21:51:56 -0600, HarryB wrote:

Yes, I will make up my mind at some point, but right now I'm not
convinced. The theory makes sense, but my personal observation *at
this time* doesn't reveal that the Park Tool CC-2 chain checker is
wrong. Here are the results of the 6 chains I referred to in my
message:

Chain #1 CC-2: 0.25 Ruler: 12"
Chain #2 CC-2: 0.25 Ruler: 12"
Chain #3 CC-2: 0.50 Ruler: 12 1/16"
Chain #4: CC-2: 1.0+ Ruler: 12 1/4"
Chain #5: CC-2: 0.80 Ruler: 12 3/32"
Chain #6: CC-2: 0.25 Ruler: 12"


I bought a CC-2 and don't really like it. On new chain, the wear
factor seems different by brand. I went back to a steel tape measure
when the chain is on the bike. When the chain is off, either the tape
measure or hanging alongside a new chain is my method.

I decided that I wasn't too worried about wear on new chains,
especially the ones from reputable manufacturers. But, so far my
observation, based on my limited testing, is that it is quite accurate
on the 6 chains I have checked. I was especially interested in Chain
#5 because in my ignorance I decided to replace that chain based
solely on the CC-2's reading. It wasn't until I was advised that chain
checker tools are (allegedly) inaccurate that I checked it with a
ruler. And, lo and behold, the ruler confirmed what the CC-2 had
indicated, that the chain was near the end of its useful life.

I have not yet seen anyone prove that the CC-2 provides inaccurate
readings at the point where it is important - near the limits of the
usability of the chain. I'm not saying no one has, I just haven't seen
it, so I am keeping an open mind.

I make absolutely no prediction about how the CC-2 will function long
term or on other chains. But at this point in time I intend to keep it
and check for myself to see if it is bad as some here claim.

Harry

On 14 Feb 2006 05:54:14 GMT, wrote:

Harry None None writes:

As far as the accuracy of various rulers is concerned, I know for
a fact that not all rulers are accurate. I was quite surprised to
read that Jobst Brandt advocated that using a free yardstick from
a hardware store was accurate enough for his purposes

http://tinyurl.com/b6hyk

Aside from the parallax issue with a wooden yardstick, I remember
many years ago, when I was quite young, that a project I was working
on ended up poorly constructed because I had used a yardstick that I
got as a freebie from a hardware store. It was very inaccurate
compared to the Craftsman tape measure I should have used.

The parallax and accuracy of wooden yardsticks has not changed in 35
years. Your approach to the subject raises the question of why you
choose to tell how it is when you want to know who it is. 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.

I wasn't trying to instruct anyone in anything! My original post was
about the feasibility of adding graphite to my wax. From there a
reference was made to chain measuring tools and I was surprised to
learn that some people do not regard the tool that I use as accurate.
There were a few more back and forth posts as I tried to understand
more clearly what the problem was with my tool. It appears to me that
you reached an erroneous conclusion because you jumped into the middle
of the conversation, without any regard to the context, and now accuse
me of something sinister. Your allegation is absolutely wrong.

There is no parallax. the ruler markings can be brought into
contact with the chain pins on the bicycle.

I stand corrected about the parallax. It has been a long time since I
have used a wooden yard stick because after my disastrous project I
purchased a good quality tape measure and 48" metal
ruler/straightedge.

Oh pshaw! I've got enough promotional yard sticks from local shops
that are more accurate than a fraction of a line width and that
over 36 inches.

I admit that the last time I used a freebie wooden yard stick from a
hardware store was about 35 years ago. It hadn't occurred to me that
they are more accurate today.

You're grasping at straws to possibly justify your purchase of a
chain gauge of some type. Don't worry, no one guessed until now
that you had been suckered.

As someone who is rather new to the biking scene, I have discovered
that there is a lot to learn. Although it may be obvious to a
veteran biker that commercially available chain measuring tools are
not good at accurately revealing chain wear, why would a newbie be
expected to have researched this problem in the first place?

I think it is prudent to find out what problems will confront the user
before purchasing tools. Chains are a special problem because they
are sop dirty and an affront to the owner of an expensive bicycle.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/chain-care.html

I have a shop full of tools and if I had done a bunch of research
before the purchase of each of my tools I wouldn't have time to use
them. For some reason it appears that you don't grasp the idea that
newbies simply don't know much about the subject at hand and shouldn't
be faulted for their initial ignorance. I have stated that I am a
newbie and I think that if one thoughtfully reads my posts he will
discover that I am asking questions to enhance my knowledge of the
subject about which I inquired and nothing more than that.

I learned that chains wear and need to be replaced periodically. I
read that one can use a ruler or purchase a chain checker to discover
the amount of wear. Since my eyesight isn't what it used to be, I need
a magnifying glass to make sure that I would have the ruler lined up
*exactly* with the center of the pins, so decided that a device like
the Park Tool CC-2 would be easier for me to see the results than
checking with a ruler.

If you can read this without a magnifying glass, you can see a 1/16"
deviation on a hard stick.

My optometrist says that with the condition of my eyes he understands
that I sometimes need a magnifying glass even though I wear bifocals.
We have discussed the possibility of trifocals, but have decided
against them for the time being because I only occasionally need to
use the magnifying glass. I didn't know that besides being a very
knowledgeable person about bicycle issues (and I say that
respectfully) you are also an expert in the field of optometry.

It has now been brought to my attention that there are differences of
opinions on how to accurately measure chain wear. I'm not grasping at
straws to justify my purchase. I simply haven't had the time to
research it enough to decide if I have been "suckered." And if I have
been "suckered" I am mature enough to accept that I made a mistake. I
don't get hung up on little things like that any more.

Time "to research" sounds pretty grave to me for deciding whether chain
length is governed by roller wear or pin wear, especially when the
effects of each have been explained.

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 take it you feel that if it is in print it must be true.

I've been around long enough to be reasonably skeptical, so I usually
do some research before a purchase of this sort. I recall that most
reviews of Zinn's book were quite favorable.

At the
same time you say you understand why pin spacing is the dimension of
interest.

Indeed, I believe I now understand that. But, I am not yet convinced
that my chain checker tool will lead me astray. As I related further
down in my post, the Park Tool's chain checker I own agrees with the
ruler method when I checked 6 chains I had readily available to me.
But you (and others) argue that my chain checker tool will provide
wrong information *in theory.* Maybe so, but in my real world limited
experience it provided correct information. I guess I was skeptical of
what I read in print and actually tested what you (and others) wrote
and found out otherwise.

Well, there you have a good reason to doubt other things that Zinn
passes along from bicycle myth and lore, some of which is
worthwhile and some not.

Are you implying that I was also suckered into purchasing his book?

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.

I was under the impression that "Zinn & The Art of Road Bike
Maintenance" would be a good book for a DIYer like me who wants to fix
and maintain his own bike. In the many reviews that I read before I
purchased the book (it was actually a birthday present from my dear
stoker) 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.

As I have clearly stated, I am a newbie to the bicycling world. All I
wish to do with my tandem is spend time in the company of my lovely
wife enjoying life as we pedal around the countryside together. In
order to make that a possibility the tandem needs to be maintained and
that is what I am interested in. Since you imply that my purchase of
the above referenced book was not the best choice, which book should I
have purchased?

I hope you can make up your own mind about whether measuring roller
spacing has much to do with chain pitch.

Yes, I will make up my mind at some point, but right now I'm not
convinced. The theory makes sense, but my personal observation *at
this time* doesn't reveal that the Park Tool CC-2 chain checker is
wrong. Here are the results of the 6 chains I referred to in my
message:

Chain #1 CC-2: 0.25 Ruler: 12"
Chain #2 CC-2: 0.25 Ruler: 12"
Chain #3 CC-2: 0.50 Ruler: 12 1/16"
Chain #4: CC-2: 1.0+ Ruler: 12 1/4"
Chain #5: CC-2: 0.80 Ruler: 12 3/32"
Chain #6: CC-2: 0.25 Ruler: 12"

A couple of paragraphs above you wrote: "I prefer seeing stated what
the method is, why it should be used and a test by which you can prove
it to yourself." That is exactly what I did. I noted that you claim
that chain checker tools are inaccurate and you stated why. I tested
that theory with a particular chain checker tool and found that the
reality conflicted with the theory in this case. The theory may very
well be confirmed in other cases, I don't know. But, my conclusion is
that your theory is wrong in this particular case.

I find Chain #5 to be of special interest. A number of months ago, in
my ignorance I decided to replace that chain based solely on the
CC-2's reading. It wasn't until I was advised that chain checker tools
are (allegedly) inaccurate that I checked it with a ruler. And, lo and
behold, the ruler confirmed what the CC-2 had indicated, that the
chain was near the end of its useful life. The tool performed as
advertised.

He continues that a second method is to measure the distance
between the rivets of 12 links and a third method is to compare
the length of 50 links of the chain in question to a new chain of
equal number of lengths.

How about driving a finishing nail onto the garage wall to hang the
chain and a mark 25 inches below to indicate the correct length for
fifty pitches? That way a new chain need not be sacrificed to do the
work of a yard stick. Yard sticks are free, chains cost money. This
sounds like a quaint homily rather than a practical chain measurement,
albeit one that a person who doesn't trust hard sticks might find
attractive.

You really seem to be hung up on your freebie yardsticks. It appears
to me that you are the one who is grasping at straws to justify your
method. Maybe it didn't occur to you that one could use the new chain
on his bike after the old one has worn out? Since we ride a couple of
$3,000+ bikes I know that keeping a spare chain (even an expensive
one) on hand is not going to be a problem for me.

Typo: that should have been "links", not "lengths".

I didn't see how he proposes one do this. Maybe you can explain.

His explanation seems logical to me. But, since I'm a newbie maybe
this third method is also a "myth and lore". Anyway, here are his
own words, "Chain manufacturer Sachs (now SRAM) recommends
replacement if elongation is 1 percent, or 1/2 inch in 100 links (50
inches). If the chain is off of the bike, you can hang it next to a
new chain: if it is more than a half-link longer for the same number
of links, replace it."

I checked 8 chains that I have here with the Park Tool CC-2 and
also with a ruler (which might be reasonably accurate.) The chains
range from new to excessively worn. On 6 of the chains the two
methods seem to produce similar results. The other 2 chains are
very dirty because they are on a used tandem I just purchased and
I wouldn't draw any conclusion until I get those chains cleaned
up.

So why are you telling us this if there are no conclusions?

I *did* draw a conclusion. I wrote, "On 6 of the chains the two
methods seem to produce similar results." On the other two, I don't
know if a very dirty chain will skew the readings, so I don't draw a
conclusion.

I hope you realize that the ruler method is absolute in pitch
measurement while the chain checker is measuring with the assumption
that roller clearance is constant... which it is not since chains vary
from one brand to the next.

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.

What makes your tandem chain expensive? You can make a chain of
any length with off the shelf chains of your choosing.

I chose expensive chains (Wippermann nickel plated) because I wanted
to have shiny chains. I discovered that one of the benefits of
waxing the chains is that it is very easy to keep the chains shiny,
just like I keep the rest of the bike. Unfortunately, the
Wippermann drive chain broke and it has taken some time to get
Wippermann to send a free replacement (my LBS wouldn't replace it
under warranty), so I replaced it with a Dura-Ace. Not quite as
nice looking, but still a lot nicer than the stock chain.

I suppose that depends on your priorities. You might consider that
the transfer chain wears roughly proportional to the inverse square of
its sprocket size. The sprocket size defines both the angle through
which the chain articulates and under what tension it makes these
motions.

What in the world does this have to do with my reasoning for
purchasing expensive chains? My priorities were first of all a chain
from a reputable manufacturer (although the Wippermann disappointed
me) and secondly a shiny chain.

PS: I'm surprised to notice that you decided to change "HarryB" to
"Harry Bull". I hadn't expected that of you.

I don't like to read BS such as rulers and yard sticks being too
inaccurate to measure chain wear as an excuse for doing things the
hard way. You can posture about that but you know that is BS.

No, I don't know that it is BS. What I do know is that you have jumped
to a totally erroneous conclusion about me. I came here asking *in
good faith* a question about chain lubrication. In the course of the
discussion I discovered that an assumption I made (that the chain
checker tool I have will accurately measure chain wear) might not be
correct. I have a great deal of respect for your expertise in the
field of bicycles, but I'm afraid that you appear to be a poor judge
of character. And more than that, you come across as having a bone to
pick with someone and took it out on me. What a shame.

What
does B stand for by the way, or is that embarrassing? We know that
jim beam is a whiskey rather than a human, although the alias is used
by a participant in this forum.

Good night, what is your problem? I will, however, stoop to answer
your absurd question. If my memory serves me correctly, a number of
years ago I was posting a question to a ng dealing with tropical fish
keeping. My user ID at that time was Harry (which is my call name.)
Another Harry posted that people might be confused because his name
was also Harry, so I changed mine to HarryB. Why HarryB? Simple: My
name is Harry van den Berg (it's Dutch) and since I was a little child
I have used HB as my initials. HarryB just seemed like a logical way
to id myself.

Jobst Brandt

Harry

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. Â*After eight years, the wheels he built for me
are still serviceable and the spokes stay put. Â*I want to build
some wheels, and would like to try the oil. Â*Does anyone know ifI
should use raw or boiled linseed oil?

That depends on whether under a full or new moon. Â*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. The
question I asked ought to be a clue to what was wrong with this
picture. A reasonably built wheel requires no spoke goo to remain
true for the life of the rim. I'm sure you have read about the
invention of Wheelsmith Spoke-Prep and that it was a band-aid for
loosely machine built wheels and why machine built wheels have
consistently been too loose to retain spoke adjustment.

I'm still looking for my denunciation of someone for asking a
reasonable question. You may be less sensitive to trolls than I am.
As was said in these pages, "He doesn't suffer fools lightly."

Jobst Brandt