Chain waxing + graphite question

aka Jobst Brandt wrote:
...
I think you have the wrong picture in mind. The dirt inside the chain
is fine granite dust and metal powder that is not caked in place....

The feldspar portion of granite usually weathers to clay minerals,
while the quartz and mica portions exhibits much less change from
chemical weathering, typically producing quartz and mica particles that
range from "sand" sized to "clay" sized [1]. Therefore, unless one is
referring to a process when abrasive or crushing mechanical processes
are forming "rock flour" from granite, the use of the term "granite
dust" is misleading.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain_size.

--
Tom Sherman

In article ,
HarryB wrote:

Well, how about this example: Zinn also writes, without any proof,
"The distance between these rivets should be 12 inches exactly. If it
is 12 1/8 inches or greater, replace the chain..." Isn't that also an
"axiomatic proclamation"? He doesn't offer any proof for this
statement. He does explain the effects of excessive wear on the
chainrings and cogs, but doesn't explain why 12 1/8" and not, let's
say 12 1/2", is the replacement point. Has Zinn also been taken to
task for this "axiomatic proclamation", or is it that since most
people seem to agree with that statement they don't apply the same
standard as when they disagree? IOW, the "axiomatic proclamation" test
is not applied uniformly?

At 12" 1/8 the cogs on the cogwheels of the rear wheel are
already badly worn. Replace your chain whenever it reaches
12' 1/16. Many people will tell you that they have
prematurely worn out cogwheels by running out of
specification chains. You should do the experiment
yourself. The essence of the scientific method is
reproducibility of reported results.

My local bicycle shop (35+ years in the business) uses a
simple rule of thumb. Put on a new chain, add lubricant
when it complains, throw it away after 1000 miles.

--
Michael Press

Michael Press aka Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
HarryB wrote:

Well, how about this example: Zinn also writes, without any proof,
"The distance between these rivets should be 12 inches exactly. If it
is 12 1/8 inches or greater, replace the chain..." Isn't that also an
"axiomatic proclamation"? He doesn't offer any proof for this
statement. He does explain the effects of excessive wear on the
chainrings and cogs, but doesn't explain why 12 1/8" and not, let's
say 12 1/2", is the replacement point. Has Zinn also been taken to
task for this "axiomatic proclamation", or is it that since most
people seem to agree with that statement they don't apply the same
standard as when they disagree? IOW, the "axiomatic proclamation" test
is not applied uniformly?

At 12" 1/8 the cogs on the cogwheels of the rear wheel are
already badly worn. Replace your chain whenever it reaches
12' 1/16. Many people will tell you that they have
prematurely worn out cogwheels by running out of
specification chains. You should do the experiment
yourself. The essence of the scientific method is
reproducibility of reported results.

My local bicycle shop (35+ years in the business) uses a
simple rule of thumb. Put on a new chain, add lubricant
when it complains, throw it away after 1000 miles.

So your LBS have been throwing out perfectly good chains for 35 years?
We are NOT talking about an item such as helicopter rotor blades here
where failure will probably lead to the death of the occupants.

At $30-50 per replacement chain, I will certainly not be throwing them
out at 1,000 miles when they last much longer.

--
Tom Sherman

On 15 Feb 2006 16:50:15 GMT, wrote:


I think you don't understand. As I said these posts are trolls that
have all the earmarks of telling us something the writer doesn't
understand and done in a smug manner.

Some may be trolls. No way all are trolls -- some are just questions.
You assume since you've answered the question a zillion times that
everyone must know the answer, but a lot of people are ignorant and
lazy and have no ill will -- they're just asking a questions.

My response takes that issue to
task. If you look at what the person wrote, like the one about how
linseed oil made his wheels last a long time, there is a message there
that doesn't merit passing on as fact and the writer knows it.

[details on why spoke prep and linseed oil are not needed snipped]

You really don't understand what I'm talking about, so I'll try to
explain it again. I'm not commenting at all on the use of linseed oil
or spoke prep. I'm commenting on that fact that because someone else
doesn't understand something as well as you, you often feel the need
to claim they have some desire for superstition, rather than simply
being ignorant. Those two things are not the same. Step back for a
minute and think about it.

I think you don't see beyond the linseed oil. The tone of that post,
as others, is that this is the solution to some specific problem when
in fact the person writing has no evidence that it is so.

So you're saying that because someone has no evidence they're
trolling? That's quite a leap. Probably most are simply ignorant. I
know I believed in the linseed oil thing because I simply didn't know
better.

Passing on
naivete as fact is bluster at best. If you like that, it's your
choice.

I'm still looking for my denunciation of someone for asking a
reasonable question. You may be less sensitive to trolls than I am.

You're mistaken if you think these people are all trolls. And if you
truly think they are trolls, just don't answer.

Ah yes, but the misinformation that rest of the newsgroup gets is
worth a response.

The response is saying they're wrong and/or demonstrating it. Or
saying nothing if it tires you too much.

That you don't see the damage these intentional and
unintentional trolls cause,

Ahhhh, here we get to the meat of the issue. You think that someone
can be trolling unintentionally. The whole nature of trolling is
trying to stir up trouble. By it's very nature people can't troll
unintentionally.

JT

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

On 15 Feb 2006 16:33:53 GMT, wrote:

I think you have the wrong picture in mind. The dirt inside the chain
is fine granite dust and metal powder that is not caked in place. If
you disassemble a dirty chain I think you'll see that it contains a
fine grey/black residue that is easily washed away by immersion and
sloshing the chain around in the wash tank. Caked on external dirt is
the part that is hard to dislodge and that is best done by a stiff
parts cleaning brush in a wash tank having a perforated false bottom.

Jobst Brandt

I've thought that a great amount of black stuff that appears on
chains is the rubber powder from the wearing of car tires. I think
that rubber dust is also a part of what coats the rims on a wet ride.
Oil on the bike seems to get dirty quicker around town in Los Angeles
than on roads less traveled. I did a tour in Southern Utah last fall
and got rained on. The equipment was a lot cleaner than it would have
been had I gotten wet in LosA.

HarryB wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 10:15:36 -0500, Peter Cole
wrote:


HarryB wrote:

I think I grasp somewhat the reasoning behind measuring the
distance between pins rather than between rollers. But, Lennard
Zinn in the latest version of his book "Zinn & The Art of Road
Bike Maintenance" writes: "The most reliable way to see whether
the chain is worn out is to employ a chain-elongation gauge, such
as the model make by Rohloff."

I don't recall reading that Zinn passes along myths and that I
should be on the lookout for "axiomatic proclamations" which would get
me into trouble if I followed them.

Zinn is wrong, a Rohloff tool is *not* the "most reliable" way to check
chains. That is an example of one of his "axiomatic proclamations".


Didn't *you* just make an "axiomatic proclamation"? You offered no
proof that he is wrong.

I didn't (offer proof), because it seemed you had already "grasped" that
from your original statement.

The reason it's not the "most reliable" is that it doesn't measure pitch
directly -- or at least not as directly as a ruler does.

As a newbie to many of these discussions I'm
confused about this "axiomatic proclamation" business. One can hardly
expect an author to justify each and every statement he makes.

Well, that depends on how much you trust the author and/or how curious
you are. If you're interested enough in chain lubrication to brew your
own lube, I would think you'd be interested in the mechanisms of chain wear.

In reference to Zinn's book, Jobst Brandt wrote, "If you read the tone
of such a book and find axiomatic proclamations
with no reasoning for the claims, you should be wary of its claims. I
prefer seeing stated what the method is, why it should be used and a
test by which you can prove it to yourself."

Well, how about this example: Zinn also writes, without any proof,
"The distance between these rivets should be 12 inches exactly. If it
is 12 1/8 inches or greater, replace the chain..." Isn't that also an
"axiomatic proclamation"?

Yes.

He doesn't offer any proof for this
statement. He does explain the effects of excessive wear on the
chainrings and cogs, but doesn't explain why 12 1/8" and not, let's
say 12 1/2", is the replacement point. Has Zinn also been taken to
task for this "axiomatic proclamation", or is it that since most
people seem to agree with that statement they don't apply the same
standard as when they disagree? IOW, the "axiomatic proclamation" test
is not applied uniformly?

In this case, his "axiomatic proclamation" is correct, although he still
requires the reader to take it on faith. I would be much more happy with
the inclusion of an explanation, but then I'm an engineer who hangs
out on a technical bike news group.

I have tried other methods of lubricating and found that overall they
are more work than the hot wax method I use to accomplish my goals.

I'm sorry, it's hard to take that comment seriously from someone who
uses such an elaborate method.


As for your tandem timing chain wearing out prematurely, I'd hesitate
before accusing the seller of stiffing you with a pre-worn chain, it may
be that the timing chain was badly adjusted (or the rings eccentrically
mounted, etc.).


In retrospect there are other factors which lead me to this
unfortunate conclusion. I won't mention them here because they are
irrelevant to this discussion but I doubt I will ever purchase another
bike from this dealer. That will be a hardship for me since tandem
dealers are few and far between and we will have to drive hundreds of
miles to the next nearest dealer.

My sympathies, but you did accuse the dealer (in your post) of being
dishonest based only on rate of chain wear (the mechanism for which you
simultaneously admitted ignorance of).


If the Park tool works better for you with your eyesight problems, then
it's a worthwhile tool, but for most of us it's not a good choice since
it's $30 and not guaranteed to be more accurate (or quicker) than a
ruler -- IOW, a solution looking for a problem.


I paid a lot less than that, but the price of this tool is irrelevant
- the question is about it's accuracy. As I have already indicated in
a couple of other posts, I have found that when I checked the CC-2's
readings against a ruler's, the results have been comparable. No one
has yet shown me any data which meets the "axiomatic proclamation"
standard as articulated by Jobst Brandt. IOW, I have read a bunch of
theory, but I have not read of anyone who has actually checked the
accuracy of the CC-2 against a ruler. I would welcome reviewing such a
test. Until I have seen such a test, I must draw the conclusion that
the allegation that Park Tool's CC-2 is inaccurate is an axiomatic
proclamation.

If you Google, you'll find several examples of people reporting the
inaccuracy of chain measurement tools. IOW, the experience has been
variable. Rulers never lie. Did Zinn even mention using a ruler?

This is a technical NG, and its archives form an important resource. You
may find the criticism overzealous, but cycling has suffered from "myths
and lore" for decades. It's a worthwhile effort to try to set the record
straight. You should temper your indignation with the realization of
your relative ignorance. I've read Zinn, I've read Brandt -- there's no
comparison. I would think you'd be grateful that a guy like him would
spend the time to try to educate you a little, rather than getting all
tweaked about it.

Dans le message de ,
Peter Cole a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

This is a technical NG, and its archives form an important resource.
You may find the criticism overzealous, but cycling has suffered from
"myths and lore" for decades.

Just to be clear, myth and lore are contrapositives.
Myth is not good.
Lore is good.
Fin.

In article
.com,
"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
wrote:

Michael Press aka Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
HarryB wrote:

Well, how about this example: Zinn also writes, without any proof,
"The distance between these rivets should be 12 inches exactly. If it
is 12 1/8 inches or greater, replace the chain..." Isn't that also an
"axiomatic proclamation"? He doesn't offer any proof for this
statement. He does explain the effects of excessive wear on the
chainrings and cogs, but doesn't explain why 12 1/8" and not, let's
say 12 1/2", is the replacement point. Has Zinn also been taken to
task for this "axiomatic proclamation", or is it that since most
people seem to agree with that statement they don't apply the same
standard as when they disagree? IOW, the "axiomatic proclamation" test
is not applied uniformly?

At 12" 1/8 the cogs on the cogwheels of the rear wheel are
already badly worn. Replace your chain whenever it reaches
12' 1/16. Many people will tell you that they have
prematurely worn out cogwheels by running out of
specification chains. You should do the experiment
yourself. The essence of the scientific method is
reproducibility of reported results.

My local bicycle shop (35+ years in the business) uses a
simple rule of thumb. Put on a new chain, add lubricant
when it complains, throw it away after 1000 miles.

So your LBS have been throwing out perfectly good chains for 35 years?
We are NOT talking about an item such as helicopter rotor blades here
where failure will probably lead to the death of the occupants.

At $30-50 per replacement chain, I will certainly not be throwing them
out at 1,000 miles when they last much longer.

I pay considerably less. If someone wants to undertake the
work required to measure and clean their chain then he
will. They make it easy for people to maintain the drive
train on their bicycle. Look how much work it is to
explain maintenance of the drive train.

--
Michael Press

In article ,
HarryB wrote:

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 05:16:00 GMT, Michael Press wrote:

In article ,
HarryB wrote:

Well, how about this example: Zinn also writes, without any proof,
"The distance between these rivets should be 12 inches exactly. If it
is 12 1/8 inches or greater, replace the chain..." Isn't that also an
"axiomatic proclamation"? He doesn't offer any proof for this
statement. He does explain the effects of excessive wear on the
chainrings and cogs, but doesn't explain why 12 1/8" and not, let's
say 12 1/2", is the replacement point. Has Zinn also been taken to
task for this "axiomatic proclamation", or is it that since most
people seem to agree with that statement they don't apply the same
standard as when they disagree? IOW, the "axiomatic proclamation" test
is not applied uniformly?

At 12" 1/8 the cogs on the cogwheels of the rear wheel are
already badly worn. Replace your chain whenever it reaches
12' 1/16. Many people will tell you that they have
prematurely worn out cogwheels by running out of
specification chains. You should do the experiment
yourself. The essence of the scientific method is
reproducibility of reported results.

My local bicycle shop (35+ years in the business) uses a
simple rule of thumb. Put on a new chain, add lubricant
when it complains, throw it away after 1000 miles.

You (approvingly) cite your LBS's very unscientific method of
replacing chains after 1,000 miles of use. How do they know when a
chain has reached the 1,000 mile mark? Do they check the odometer of
each bike? And what evidence do they have that each and every chain is
worn out at the 1,000 mile point? That would become a very expensive
proposition for some riders. Even from this newbie's perspective I can
conclude quite quickly that your LBS doesn't have their customer's
best interest at heart if what you report is true. BTW, you aren't a
part owner of this LBS, are you?

What is the name of this LBS, so that others may be aware of this
practice?

It is scientific in that it has repeatably proven
effective keeping peoples bicycles running smoothly.

-- How do I know when I have gone 1000 miles?
-- Where do you ride, and when did you last replace the
chain?
-- I ride x-y-z 5 times a week. Last year.
-- OK. That is N miles.

Sheesh! Two sharp responses as if I am advocating the
dissolution of our nation's moral fiber. It is a bicycle
chain. Do what you will. I mention it to broaden people's
thinking; that is my crime.

I quote their years in business to suggest that they
effectively serve bicyclists.

--
Michael Press

John Forrest Tomlinson writes:

Passing on
naivete as fact is bluster at best. If you like that, it's your
choice.

I'm still looking for my denunciation of someone for asking a
reasonable question. You may be less sensitive to trolls than I
am.

You're mistaken if you think these people are all trolls. And if
you truly think they are trolls, just don't answer.

Ah yes, but the misinformation that rest of the newsgroup gets is
worth a response.

The response is saying they're wrong and/or demonstrating it. Or
saying nothing if it tires you too much.

That you don't see the damage these intentional and unintentional
trolls cause,

Ahhhh, here we get to the meat of the issue. You think that someone
can be trolling unintentionally. The whole nature of trolling is
trying to stir up trouble. By it's very nature people can't troll
unintentionally.

A better word for it would be that these folks have a nature of
trolling when "asking questions". On the one had they want to ask and
the other they don't want to admit not knowing, so they put forth
bluster that is in fact a troll... one that elicits a different
response than a forthright question would.

Jobst Brandt