|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Chain waxing + graphite question
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 |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Chain waxing + graphite question
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? |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Chain waxing + graphite question
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... |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Chain waxing + graphite question
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 **************************** |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Chain waxing + graphite question
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Chain waxing + graphite question
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 |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Chain waxing + graphite question
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 |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Chain waxing + graphite question
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 |
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 |