Ads |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Dry lube?
On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 12:09:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 7:26:57 PM UTC+2, sms wrote: On 4/29/2018 8:19 AM, wrote: Another thing that is puzzling is that while you are recommending this remarkable foaming stuff and don't actually say so your language seems to hint that without foam it just won't penetrate into the chain links yet I have worked on chain driven equipment with chains that were ten or more years old. Still perfectly usable and no foam at all. Just a SAE 40 oil bath. It is easy to penetrate a chain. The lube just has to have a low enough viscosity that is all. Thats why wax based lubes have some volatile component. The cheapest is iso propanol. Oil has a low enough viscosity of his own. So the question is, is foam really necessary? Of course not. The advantage of using a foaming chain lubricant is that, unlike an oil bath, you don't have to remove the chain and soak it. With an oil bath, it does help to heat the oil slightly if you want to speed up the process. I have tried doing an "oil bath" with one of those chain cleaning tools filled with non-detergent oil instead of solvent. It works, but it's messy and probably no faster than removing the chain, since you need to move the chain through the oil pretty slowly. With the new thinner chains, you want to minimize removing them unless they have a connecting link and don't require a rivet extractor. My goal is to minimize the time and expense of chain maintenance. A chain cleaning tool used with kerosene or diesel fuel as a solvent, and a can of non-O-ring foaming chain lubricant gets the time down to just a few minutes. I have no interest in recreational chain maintenance. Then I do everything wrong: - use wax base lube, - don't use a torch, just drip the stuff on every roller, - never take my chain of the bike, - never clean it with nasty solvents. Rode last Sunday more than 2 hours is a down pour. My chain didn't squeak after the wetter improved. Came home and hosed my bike with the garden hose. Wiped my bike and chain dry, put it in the stand and lubed my chain the next day. Well **** it, a chain life of 8000 km is good enough for me... I showed this picture befo https://photos.app.goo.gl/LHuxnrNkPxZL8NbF6 From top to bottom: new chain, chain lubed with my wax based lube and chain lubed with Rohloff chain oil for a while. Both chains had a milage of 8500 km. Yes, Mike, Sheldon and Jobs had it wrong sometimes IMO. But if you happy with your foaming lube that is OK, but don't tell me that I have to spend a lot of time on chain maintenance to get a long chain life. You are losing your credibility. I do basically the same thing with my 11sp chains after a long ride in the muck and rain -- put the bike on a wash stand, hose it down and suds it up a little with Simple Green, clean the chain and cassette with a stiff brush while turning the crank. Rinse fully (Simple Green is acidic). Wipe it all down and relube the chain. Pamper, preen, put bike away in basement shop.. Procedure with my 9sp commuter is: lean bike against inside garage wall, go inside, dry off and eat dinner. Oil chain next day with whatever is hanging around the garage door -- maybe wipe a garden slug on the chain, spit, WD40. I might actually take the chain off that bike and give it a soak because the links are reuseable. -- Jay Beattie. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Dry lube?
On 5/1/2018 12:03 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 10:26:57 AM UTC-7, sms wrote: On 4/29/2018 8:19 AM, wrote: Another thing that is puzzling is that while you are recommending this remarkable foaming stuff and don't actually say so your language seems to hint that without foam it just won't penetrate into the chain links yet I have worked on chain driven equipment with chains that were ten or more years old. Still perfectly usable and no foam at all. Just a SAE 40 oil bath. It is easy to penetrate a chain. The lube just has to have a low enough viscosity that is all. Thats why wax based lubes have some volatile component. The cheapest is iso propanol. Oil has a low enough viscosity of his own. So the question is, is foam really necessary? Of course not. The advantage of using a foaming chain lubricant is that, unlike an oil bath, you don't have to remove the chain and soak it. With an oil bath, it does help to heat the oil slightly if you want to speed up the process. I have tried doing an "oil bath" with one of those chain cleaning tools filled with non-detergent oil instead of solvent. It works, but it's messy and probably no faster than removing the chain, since you need to move the chain through the oil pretty slowly. With the new thinner chains, you want to minimize removing them unless they have a connecting link and don't require a rivet extractor. My goal is to minimize the time and expense of chain maintenance. A chain cleaning tool used with kerosene or diesel fuel as a solvent, and a can of non-O-ring foaming chain lubricant gets the time down to just a few minutes. I have no interest in recreational chain maintenance. Bad news -- most 11sp quick-links are designated single use. https://www.sram.com/sram/mountain/p...ector-11-speed Probably to sell them in bulk. Goin' to Joergville for those: https://www.amazon.com/JooFn-Silver-...ter+link&psc=1 For an Amazon link (no pun intended), all you need is this https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0787Y7WKN. I guess $2 each is not a big deal, as long as you can keep from losing them in the garage. But it's really unnecessary since there's no benefit in removing the chain for cleaning and lubrication. The chain cleaning devices keep the chain in motion through the solvent and do a better job of cleaning than just dropping the chain in a container of solvent and agitating it (I agree with Sheldon on this!). Foaming chain lubricant is as good as dropping the chain into a pan of warm non-detergent motor oil. I put a big plastic pan under the chain to catch any spills https://www.homedepot.com/p/Plasgad-Black-Large-Concrete-Mixing-Tub-887102C/205451585. Again, my goal is to minimize the time and effort of chain maintenance while not sacrificing proper cleaning and lubrication. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Dry lube?
On 5/1/2018 12:09 PM, wrote:
On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 7:26:57 PM UTC+2, sms wrote: On 4/29/2018 8:19 AM, wrote: Another thing that is puzzling is that while you are recommending this remarkable foaming stuff and don't actually say so your language seems to hint that without foam it just won't penetrate into the chain links yet I have worked on chain driven equipment with chains that were ten or more years old. Still perfectly usable and no foam at all. Just a SAE 40 oil bath. It is easy to penetrate a chain. The lube just has to have a low enough viscosity that is all. Thats why wax based lubes have some volatile component. The cheapest is iso propanol. Oil has a low enough viscosity of his own. So the question is, is foam really necessary? Of course not. The advantage of using a foaming chain lubricant is that, unlike an oil bath, you don't have to remove the chain and soak it. With an oil bath, it does help to heat the oil slightly if you want to speed up the process. I have tried doing an "oil bath" with one of those chain cleaning tools filled with non-detergent oil instead of solvent. It works, but it's messy and probably no faster than removing the chain, since you need to move the chain through the oil pretty slowly. With the new thinner chains, you want to minimize removing them unless they have a connecting link and don't require a rivet extractor. My goal is to minimize the time and expense of chain maintenance. A chain cleaning tool used with kerosene or diesel fuel as a solvent, and a can of non-O-ring foaming chain lubricant gets the time down to just a few minutes. I have no interest in recreational chain maintenance. Then I do everything wrong: - use wax base lube, - don't use a torch, just drip the stuff on every roller, - never take my chain of the bike, - never clean it with nasty solvents. Yes, this is completely wrong. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Dry lube?
On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 3:01:21 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 5/1/2018 12:03 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 10:26:57 AM UTC-7, sms wrote: On 4/29/2018 8:19 AM, wrote: Another thing that is puzzling is that while you are recommending this remarkable foaming stuff and don't actually say so your language seems to hint that without foam it just won't penetrate into the chain links yet I have worked on chain driven equipment with chains that were ten or more years old. Still perfectly usable and no foam at all. Just a SAE 40 oil bath. It is easy to penetrate a chain. The lube just has to have a low enough viscosity that is all. Thats why wax based lubes have some volatile component. The cheapest is iso propanol. Oil has a low enough viscosity of his own. So the question is, is foam really necessary? Of course not. The advantage of using a foaming chain lubricant is that, unlike an oil bath, you don't have to remove the chain and soak it. With an oil bath, it does help to heat the oil slightly if you want to speed up the process. I have tried doing an "oil bath" with one of those chain cleaning tools filled with non-detergent oil instead of solvent. It works, but it's messy and probably no faster than removing the chain, since you need to move the chain through the oil pretty slowly. With the new thinner chains, you want to minimize removing them unless they have a connecting link and don't require a rivet extractor. My goal is to minimize the time and expense of chain maintenance. A chain cleaning tool used with kerosene or diesel fuel as a solvent, and a can of non-O-ring foaming chain lubricant gets the time down to just a few minutes. I have no interest in recreational chain maintenance. Bad news -- most 11sp quick-links are designated single use. https://www.sram.com/sram/mountain/p...ector-11-speed Probably to sell them in bulk. Goin' to Joergville for those: https://www.amazon.com/JooFn-Silver-...ter+link&psc=1 For an Amazon link (no pun intended), all you need is this https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0787Y7WKN. I guess $2 each is not a big deal, as long as you can keep from losing them in the garage. But it's really unnecessary since there's no benefit in removing the chain for cleaning and lubrication. The chain cleaning devices keep the chain in motion through the solvent and do a better job of cleaning than just dropping the chain in a container of solvent and agitating it (I agree with Sheldon on this!). Foaming chain lubricant is as good as dropping the chain into a pan of warm non-detergent motor oil. I put a big plastic pan under the chain to catch any spills https://www.homedepot.com/p/Plasgad-Black-Large-Concrete-Mixing-Tub-887102C/205451585. Again, my goal is to minimize the time and effort of chain maintenance while not sacrificing proper cleaning and lubrication. Do you use one of those chain cleaning devices. I tried an early version a million years ago, and it just spewed crap all over and was a messy nightmare. If I actually remove a chain, I put it into a patented cottage cheese container with a lid and some solvent and shake it up. I rarely do that -- and I only do it with the 9 or 10sp chains. -Jay Beattie. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Dry lube?
On 5/2/2018 3:26 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 3:01:21 PM UTC-7, sms wrote: On 5/1/2018 12:03 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 10:26:57 AM UTC-7, sms wrote: On 4/29/2018 8:19 AM, wrote: Another thing that is puzzling is that while you are recommending this remarkable foaming stuff and don't actually say so your language seems to hint that without foam it just won't penetrate into the chain links yet I have worked on chain driven equipment with chains that were ten or more years old. Still perfectly usable and no foam at all. Just a SAE 40 oil bath. It is easy to penetrate a chain. The lube just has to have a low enough viscosity that is all. Thats why wax based lubes have some volatile component. The cheapest is iso propanol. Oil has a low enough viscosity of his own. So the question is, is foam really necessary? Of course not. The advantage of using a foaming chain lubricant is that, unlike an oil bath, you don't have to remove the chain and soak it. With an oil bath, it does help to heat the oil slightly if you want to speed up the process. I have tried doing an "oil bath" with one of those chain cleaning tools filled with non-detergent oil instead of solvent. It works, but it's messy and probably no faster than removing the chain, since you need to move the chain through the oil pretty slowly. With the new thinner chains, you want to minimize removing them unless they have a connecting link and don't require a rivet extractor. My goal is to minimize the time and expense of chain maintenance. A chain cleaning tool used with kerosene or diesel fuel as a solvent, and a can of non-O-ring foaming chain lubricant gets the time down to just a few minutes. I have no interest in recreational chain maintenance. Bad news -- most 11sp quick-links are designated single use. https://www.sram.com/sram/mountain/p...ector-11-speed Probably to sell them in bulk. Goin' to Joergville for those: https://www.amazon.com/JooFn-Silver-...ter+link&psc=1 For an Amazon link (no pun intended), all you need is this https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0787Y7WKN. I guess $2 each is not a big deal, as long as you can keep from losing them in the garage. But it's really unnecessary since there's no benefit in removing the chain for cleaning and lubrication. The chain cleaning devices keep the chain in motion through the solvent and do a better job of cleaning than just dropping the chain in a container of solvent and agitating it (I agree with Sheldon on this!). Foaming chain lubricant is as good as dropping the chain into a pan of warm non-detergent motor oil. I put a big plastic pan under the chain to catch any spills https://www.homedepot.com/p/Plasgad-Black-Large-Concrete-Mixing-Tub-887102C/205451585. Again, my goal is to minimize the time and effort of chain maintenance while not sacrificing proper cleaning and lubrication. Do you use one of those chain cleaning devices. I tried an early version a million years ago, and it just spewed crap all over and was a messy nightmare. If I actually remove a chain, I put it into a patented cottage cheese container with a lid and some solvent and shake it up. I rarely do that -- and I only do it with the 9 or 10sp chains. They have greatly improved. There is still some dripping, but you can catch it in a pan underneath. The bigger issue is that it takes several solvent changes before the chain runs clean. I was talking to a guy at the old Tech Shop who worked at a bicycle shop that had a chain cleaning system set up that pumped fresh solvent through from a tank through the device so they didn't have to keep opening the device to change the solvent. I don't know if this was a commercially available device to shops, or if they built it themselves. Removing the chain and shaking it inside a container, cottage cheese or soda bottle, filled with solvent might not be as effective as the chain moving through the chain cleaner with the pins and rollers all flexing, that's the theory. Sheldon Brown writes, "The on-the-bike system has the advantage that the cleaning machine flexes the links and spins the rollers. This scrubbing action may do a better job of cleaning the innards." I know that someone is going to demand a double-blind study with a sample size of two million, that examines the difference in cleanliness between a chain cleaning tool on-the-bike, and a chain being shaken in a container of solvent off-the-bike, but I confess in advance that there is probably no such study either completed or in progress, and I know that Sheldon equivocated when he said "may do a" rather than "does" but I suspect he did so because of the lack of a study. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Dry lube?
On 02/05/2018 6:26 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 3:01:21 PM UTC-7, sms wrote: On 5/1/2018 12:03 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 10:26:57 AM UTC-7, sms wrote: On 4/29/2018 8:19 AM, wrote: Another thing that is puzzling is that while you are recommending this remarkable foaming stuff and don't actually say so your language seems to hint that without foam it just won't penetrate into the chain links yet I have worked on chain driven equipment with chains that were ten or more years old. Still perfectly usable and no foam at all. Just a SAE 40 oil bath. It is easy to penetrate a chain. The lube just has to have a low enough viscosity that is all. Thats why wax based lubes have some volatile component. The cheapest is iso propanol. Oil has a low enough viscosity of his own. So the question is, is foam really necessary? Of course not. The advantage of using a foaming chain lubricant is that, unlike an oil bath, you don't have to remove the chain and soak it. With an oil bath, it does help to heat the oil slightly if you want to speed up the process. I have tried doing an "oil bath" with one of those chain cleaning tools filled with non-detergent oil instead of solvent. It works, but it's messy and probably no faster than removing the chain, since you need to move the chain through the oil pretty slowly. With the new thinner chains, you want to minimize removing them unless they have a connecting link and don't require a rivet extractor. My goal is to minimize the time and expense of chain maintenance. A chain cleaning tool used with kerosene or diesel fuel as a solvent, and a can of non-O-ring foaming chain lubricant gets the time down to just a few minutes. I have no interest in recreational chain maintenance. Bad news -- most 11sp quick-links are designated single use. https://www.sram.com/sram/mountain/p...ector-11-speed Probably to sell them in bulk. Goin' to Joergville for those: https://www.amazon.com/JooFn-Silver-...ter+link&psc=1 For an Amazon link (no pun intended), all you need is this https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0787Y7WKN. I guess $2 each is not a big deal, as long as you can keep from losing them in the garage. But it's really unnecessary since there's no benefit in removing the chain for cleaning and lubrication. The chain cleaning devices keep the chain in motion through the solvent and do a better job of cleaning than just dropping the chain in a container of solvent and agitating it (I agree with Sheldon on this!). Foaming chain lubricant is as good as dropping the chain into a pan of warm non-detergent motor oil. I put a big plastic pan under the chain to catch any spills https://www.homedepot.com/p/Plasgad-Black-Large-Concrete-Mixing-Tub-887102C/205451585. Again, my goal is to minimize the time and effort of chain maintenance while not sacrificing proper cleaning and lubrication. Do you use one of those chain cleaning devices. I tried an early version a million years ago, and it just spewed crap all over and was a messy nightmare. If I actually remove a chain, I put it into a patented cottage cheese container with a lid and some solvent and shake it up. I rarely do that -- and I only do it with the 9 or 10sp chains. I use the Park Chain cleaner and it works ok. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Dry lube?
On 03/05/2018 9:01 AM, sms wrote:
On 5/2/2018 3:26 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 3:01:21 PM UTC-7, sms wrote: On 5/1/2018 12:03 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 10:26:57 AM UTC-7, sms wrote: On 4/29/2018 8:19 AM, wrote: Another thing that is puzzling is that while you are recommending this remarkable foaming stuff and don't actually say so your language seems to hint that without foam it just won't penetrate into the chain links yet I have worked on chain driven equipment with chains that were ten or more years old. Still perfectly usable and no foam at all. Just a SAE 40 oil bath. It is easy to penetrate a chain. The lube just has to have a low enough viscosity that is all. Thats why wax based lubes have some volatile component. The cheapest is iso propanol. Oil has a low enough viscosity of his own. So the question is, is foam really necessary? Of course not. The advantage of using a foaming chain lubricant is that, unlike an oil bath, you don't have to remove the chain and soak it. With an oil bath, it does help to heat the oil slightly if you want to speed up the process. I have tried doing an "oil bath" with one of those chain cleaning tools filled with non-detergent oil instead of solvent. It works, but it's messy and probably no faster than removing the chain, since you need to move the chain through the oil pretty slowly. With the new thinner chains, you want to minimize removing them unless they have a connecting link and don't require a rivet extractor. My goal is to minimize the time and expense of chain maintenance. A chain cleaning tool used with kerosene or diesel fuel as a solvent, and a can of non-O-ring foaming chain lubricant gets the time down to just a few minutes. I have no interest in recreational chain maintenance. Bad news -- most 11sp quick-links are designated single use. https://www.sram.com/sram/mountain/p...ector-11-speed Probably to sell them in bulk. Goin' to Joergville for those: https://www.amazon.com/JooFn-Silver-...ter+link&psc=1 For an Amazon link (no pun intended), all you need is this https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0787Y7WKN. I guess $2 each is not a big deal, as long as you can keep from losing them in the garage. But it's really unnecessary since there's no benefit in removing the chain for cleaning and lubrication. The chain cleaning devices keep the chain in motion through the solvent and do a better job of cleaning than just dropping the chain in a container of solvent and agitating it (I agree with Sheldon on this!). Foaming chain lubricant is as good as dropping the chain into a pan of warm non-detergent motor oil. I put a big plastic pan under the chain to catch any spills https://www.homedepot.com/p/Plasgad-Black-Large-Concrete-Mixing-Tub-887102C/205451585. Again, my goal is to minimize the time and effort of chain maintenance while not sacrificing proper cleaning and lubrication. Do you use one of those chain cleaning devices.Â* I tried an early version a million years ago, and it just spewed crap all over and was a messy nightmare. If I actually remove a chain, I put it into a patented cottage cheese container with a lid and some solvent and shake it up.Â* I rarely do that -- and I only do it with the 9 or 10sp chains. They have greatly improved. There is still some dripping, but you can catch it in a pan underneath. The bigger issue is that it takes several solvent changes before the chain runs clean. I was talking to a guy at the old Tech Shop who worked at a bicycle shop that had a chain cleaning system set up that pumped fresh solvent through from a tank through the device so they didn't have to keep opening the device to change the solvent. I don't know if this was a commercially available device to shops, or if they built it themselves. Removing the chain and shaking it inside a container, cottage cheese or soda bottle, filled with solvent might not be as effective as the chain moving through the chain cleaner with the pins and rollers all flexing, that's the theory. Sheldon Brown writes, "The on-the-bike system has the advantage that the cleaning machine flexes the links and spins the rollers. This scrubbing action may do a better job of cleaning the innards." I know that someone is going to demand a double-blind study with a sample size of two million, that examines the difference in cleanliness between a chain cleaning tool on-the-bike, and a chain being shaken in a container of solvent off-the-bike, but I confess in advance that there is probably no such study either completed or in progress, and I know that Sheldon equivocated when he said "may do a" rather than "does" but I suspect he did so because of the lack of a study. I don't know about studies. I don't even bother to change the degreaser. I run it through for a few minutes, wipe the chain off and let it dry then oil the chain. Life's too short for much more than that. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Dry lube?
On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 6:16:29 PM UTC+2, duane wrote:
On 03/05/2018 9:01 AM, sms wrote: On 5/2/2018 3:26 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 3:01:21 PM UTC-7, sms wrote: On 5/1/2018 12:03 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 10:26:57 AM UTC-7, sms wrote: On 4/29/2018 8:19 AM, wrote: Another thing that is puzzling is that while you are recommending this remarkable foaming stuff and don't actually say so your language seems to hint that without foam it just won't penetrate into the chain links yet I have worked on chain driven equipment with chains that were ten or more years old. Still perfectly usable and no foam at all. Just a SAE 40 oil bath. It is easy to penetrate a chain. The lube just has to have a low enough viscosity that is all. Thats why wax based lubes have some volatile component. The cheapest is iso propanol. Oil has a low enough viscosity of his own. So the question is, is foam really necessary? Of course not. The advantage of using a foaming chain lubricant is that, unlike an oil bath, you don't have to remove the chain and soak it. With an oil bath, it does help to heat the oil slightly if you want to speed up the process. I have tried doing an "oil bath" with one of those chain cleaning tools filled with non-detergent oil instead of solvent. It works, but it's messy and probably no faster than removing the chain, since you need to move the chain through the oil pretty slowly. With the new thinner chains, you want to minimize removing them unless they have a connecting link and don't require a rivet extractor. My goal is to minimize the time and expense of chain maintenance. A chain cleaning tool used with kerosene or diesel fuel as a solvent, and a can of non-O-ring foaming chain lubricant gets the time down to just a few minutes. I have no interest in recreational chain maintenance. Bad news -- most 11sp quick-links are designated single use. https://www.sram.com/sram/mountain/p...ector-11-speed Probably to sell them in bulk. Goin' to Joergville for those: https://www.amazon.com/JooFn-Silver-...ter+link&psc=1 For an Amazon link (no pun intended), all you need is this https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0787Y7WKN. I guess $2 each is not a big deal, as long as you can keep from losing them in the garage. But it's really unnecessary since there's no benefit in removing the chain for cleaning and lubrication. The chain cleaning devices keep the chain in motion through the solvent and do a better job of cleaning than just dropping the chain in a container of solvent and agitating it (I agree with Sheldon on this!). Foaming chain lubricant is as good as dropping the chain into a pan of warm non-detergent motor oil. I put a big plastic pan under the chain to catch any spills https://www.homedepot.com/p/Plasgad-Black-Large-Concrete-Mixing-Tub-887102C/205451585. Again, my goal is to minimize the time and effort of chain maintenance while not sacrificing proper cleaning and lubrication. Do you use one of those chain cleaning devices.Â* I tried an early version a million years ago, and it just spewed crap all over and was a messy nightmare. If I actually remove a chain, I put it into a patented cottage cheese container with a lid and some solvent and shake it up.Â* I rarely do that -- and I only do it with the 9 or 10sp chains. They have greatly improved. There is still some dripping, but you can catch it in a pan underneath. The bigger issue is that it takes several solvent changes before the chain runs clean. I was talking to a guy at the old Tech Shop who worked at a bicycle shop that had a chain cleaning system set up that pumped fresh solvent through from a tank through the device so they didn't have to keep opening the device to change the solvent. I don't know if this was a commercially available device to shops, or if they built it themselves. Removing the chain and shaking it inside a container, cottage cheese or soda bottle, filled with solvent might not be as effective as the chain moving through the chain cleaner with the pins and rollers all flexing, that's the theory. Sheldon Brown writes, "The on-the-bike system has the advantage that the cleaning machine flexes the links and spins the rollers. This scrubbing action may do a better job of cleaning the innards." I know that someone is going to demand a double-blind study with a sample size of two million, that examines the difference in cleanliness between a chain cleaning tool on-the-bike, and a chain being shaken in a container of solvent off-the-bike, but I confess in advance that there is probably no such study either completed or in progress, and I know that Sheldon equivocated when he said "may do a" rather than "does" but I suspect he did so because of the lack of a study. I don't know about studies. I don't even bother to change the degreaser. I run it through for a few minutes, wipe the chain off and let it dry then oil the chain. Life's too short for much more than that. I don't think there is one best method for everyone who have different requirements and priorities. I treat my chain and cassette on my commuter bike different than on my high end road bike. Cassette and chain for my commuter cost 50 euro's; for my high end road bike almost 300 euro's. Bikes are ridden in different circumstances and different frequencies Lou |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Dry lube?
On 03/05/2018 12:28 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 6:16:29 PM UTC+2, duane wrote: On 03/05/2018 9:01 AM, sms wrote: On 5/2/2018 3:26 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 3:01:21 PM UTC-7, sms wrote: On 5/1/2018 12:03 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 10:26:57 AM UTC-7, sms wrote: On 4/29/2018 8:19 AM, wrote: Another thing that is puzzling is that while you are recommending this remarkable foaming stuff and don't actually say so your language seems to hint that without foam it just won't penetrate into the chain links yet I have worked on chain driven equipment with chains that were ten or more years old. Still perfectly usable and no foam at all. Just a SAE 40 oil bath. It is easy to penetrate a chain. The lube just has to have a low enough viscosity that is all. Thats why wax based lubes have some volatile component. The cheapest is iso propanol. Oil has a low enough viscosity of his own. So the question is, is foam really necessary? Of course not. The advantage of using a foaming chain lubricant is that, unlike an oil bath, you don't have to remove the chain and soak it. With an oil bath, it does help to heat the oil slightly if you want to speed up the process. I have tried doing an "oil bath" with one of those chain cleaning tools filled with non-detergent oil instead of solvent. It works, but it's messy and probably no faster than removing the chain, since you need to move the chain through the oil pretty slowly. With the new thinner chains, you want to minimize removing them unless they have a connecting link and don't require a rivet extractor. My goal is to minimize the time and expense of chain maintenance. A chain cleaning tool used with kerosene or diesel fuel as a solvent, and a can of non-O-ring foaming chain lubricant gets the time down to just a few minutes. I have no interest in recreational chain maintenance. Bad news -- most 11sp quick-links are designated single use. https://www.sram.com/sram/mountain/p...ector-11-speed Probably to sell them in bulk. Goin' to Joergville for those: https://www.amazon.com/JooFn-Silver-...ter+link&psc=1 For an Amazon link (no pun intended), all you need is this https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0787Y7WKN. I guess $2 each is not a big deal, as long as you can keep from losing them in the garage. But it's really unnecessary since there's no benefit in removing the chain for cleaning and lubrication. The chain cleaning devices keep the chain in motion through the solvent and do a better job of cleaning than just dropping the chain in a container of solvent and agitating it (I agree with Sheldon on this!). Foaming chain lubricant is as good as dropping the chain into a pan of warm non-detergent motor oil. I put a big plastic pan under the chain to catch any spills https://www.homedepot.com/p/Plasgad-Black-Large-Concrete-Mixing-Tub-887102C/205451585. Again, my goal is to minimize the time and effort of chain maintenance while not sacrificing proper cleaning and lubrication. Do you use one of those chain cleaning devices.Â* I tried an early version a million years ago, and it just spewed crap all over and was a messy nightmare. If I actually remove a chain, I put it into a patented cottage cheese container with a lid and some solvent and shake it up.Â* I rarely do that -- and I only do it with the 9 or 10sp chains. They have greatly improved. There is still some dripping, but you can catch it in a pan underneath. The bigger issue is that it takes several solvent changes before the chain runs clean. I was talking to a guy at the old Tech Shop who worked at a bicycle shop that had a chain cleaning system set up that pumped fresh solvent through from a tank through the device so they didn't have to keep opening the device to change the solvent. I don't know if this was a commercially available device to shops, or if they built it themselves. Removing the chain and shaking it inside a container, cottage cheese or soda bottle, filled with solvent might not be as effective as the chain moving through the chain cleaner with the pins and rollers all flexing, that's the theory. Sheldon Brown writes, "The on-the-bike system has the advantage that the cleaning machine flexes the links and spins the rollers. This scrubbing action may do a better job of cleaning the innards." I know that someone is going to demand a double-blind study with a sample size of two million, that examines the difference in cleanliness between a chain cleaning tool on-the-bike, and a chain being shaken in a container of solvent off-the-bike, but I confess in advance that there is probably no such study either completed or in progress, and I know that Sheldon equivocated when he said "may do a" rather than "does" but I suspect he did so because of the lack of a study. I don't know about studies. I don't even bother to change the degreaser. I run it through for a few minutes, wipe the chain off and let it dry then oil the chain. Life's too short for much more than that. I don't think there is one best method for everyone who have different requirements and priorities. I treat my chain and cassette on my commuter bike different than on my high end road bike. Cassette and chain for my commuter cost 50 euro's; for my high end road bike almost 300 euro's. Bikes are ridden in different circumstances and different frequencies For sure. I got rid of my commuter bike and now only have my road bike. I use it for commuting. Tarmac Pro 11 speed with SRAM. Pretty high end for my budget. Chain costs probably 90 dollars (CA). 300 Euros is a lot. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
To Lube Or Not To Lube Shifter Cables That is the Question! | [email protected] | Techniques | 3 | June 11th 06 01:24 AM |
To Lube Or Not To Lube Shifter Cables That is the Question! | MykalCrooks | Techniques | 1 | June 9th 06 06:48 AM |
To Lube Or Not To Lube Shifter Cables That is the Question! | Chris M | Techniques | 2 | June 9th 06 01:30 AM |
To Lube Or Not To Lube Shifter Cables That is the Question! | Qui si parla Campagnolo | Techniques | 0 | June 8th 06 09:05 PM |
To Lube Or Not To Lube Shifter Cables That is the Question! | [email protected] | Techniques | 0 | June 8th 06 08:50 PM |