Dry lube?

On 5/2/2018 6:53 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 4:48:15 AM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/1/2018 3:09 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.
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.

To translate things to American units: Looks like you're getting about
67,000 miles per inch of chain stretch. The author of the old article I
linked earlier https://flic.kr/p/dkULS1 found 50,000 +/- 20,000 miles
per inch of stretch for paraffin wax applied hot. So you're at the top
end of his range, without using heat. Very good!

What is your wax-based lube? And how often do you reapply?

As it happens, slight squeaking told me I had to re-wax my wife's
touring bike chain yesterday. She doesn't ride much these days, maybe
400 miles per typical year. From what I can tell from some sketchy
notes, I last waxed her chain in 2013, so maybe 2000 miles ago. BTW, she
almost never rides in the rain, unless we're traveling somewhere.

--
- Frank Krygowski

I used to use something a collegue developed. He sold his formula to a commercial company, but they don't make it anymore. Now I use Squirt. I PIA with wax based lubes is that you first have to get rid of factory lube on a chain. KMC offers now a chain that is already coated with Squirt so this will be my next chain:

https://www.bike-components.de/en/KM...-Chain-p57457/

When I wax a new chain, I don't bother getting rid of the factory lube,
other than to wipe off as much as I can using paper towels. Then I just
apply the wax. I figure I'm just increasing the percentage of oil in the
wax by a small amount.

--
- Frank Krygowski

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.