Chains

I recently came across a site that tests bicycle chains
http://www.friction-facts.com/ that may be of interest to some.

Rather than the "yarebut" school of argument this site actually tests
stuff in a laboratory.

Possibly of interest to some is the "Ultrafast Chain" which is a
Simano Dura-Ace CN-7901 chain which has been "run in" on the testing
machine then ultrasonically cleaned and lubricated with a mixture of
"Paraffin, PTFE and MOS2" by using an ultrasonic cleaner loaded with
the lube mix and immersing the chain in the cleaner bath, The chain is
than run in again for a short on the test machine. The testing lab
says that this chain can save as much as 10 watts over the worst chain
that they have tested. ( 10/250 = 4%)

They also say that a cyclist can achieve nearly their test figures by
carefully cleaning and lubricating a chain by hand.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 10:05:35 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
I recently came across a site that tests bicycle chains
http://www.friction-facts.com/ that may be of interest to some.

Rather than the "yarebut" school of argument this site actually tests
stuff in a laboratory.

Possibly of interest to some is the "Ultrafast Chain" which is a
Simano Dura-Ace CN-7901 chain which has been "run in" on the testing
machine then ultrasonically cleaned and lubricated with a mixture of
"Paraffin, PTFE and MOS2" by using an ultrasonic cleaner loaded with
the lube mix and immersing the chain in the cleaner bath, The chain is
than run in again for a short on the test machine. The testing lab
says that this chain can save as much as 10 watts over the worst chain
that they have tested. ( 10/250 = 4%)

They also say that a cyclist can achieve nearly their test figures by
carefully cleaning and lubricating a chain by hand.

Being that I don't want to pay for the test results, can you explain what it means by 10 watts over the worst chain they tested? Did they do lubricant testing on the same chain? What is the before and after difference on the same chain -- assuming I wanted to buy an ultrasonic cleaner and whip up a batch of Parafin, Teflon and molybdenum disulfide.

Sounds like product placement for Molten Speed Wax. Damn. You can go hog wild on the chain cleaning/waxing thing. https://moltenspeedwax.com/collectio...-miscellaneous

Maybe I'll get the $32 ultrasonic cleaner from Harbor Freight. http://www.harborfreight.com/ultraso...aner-3305.html

-- Jay Beattie.

"jbeattie" wrote in message
...
On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 10:05:35 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
I recently came across a site that tests bicycle chains
http://www.friction-facts.com/ that may be of interest to some.

Rather than the "yarebut" school of argument this site actually tests
stuff in a laboratory.

Possibly of interest to some is the "Ultrafast Chain" which is a
Simano Dura-Ace CN-7901 chain which has been "run in" on the testing
machine then ultrasonically cleaned and lubricated with a mixture of
"Paraffin, PTFE and MOS2" by using an ultrasonic cleaner loaded with
the lube mix and immersing the chain in the cleaner bath, The chain is
than run in again for a short on the test machine. The testing lab
says that this chain can save as much as 10 watts over the worst chain
that they have tested. ( 10/250 = 4%)

They also say that a cyclist can achieve nearly their test figures by
carefully cleaning and lubricating a chain by hand.

Being that I don't want to pay for the test results, can you explain what
it means by 10 watts over the worst chain they tested? Did they do
lubricant testing on the same chain? What is the before and after
difference on the same chain -- assuming I wanted to buy an ultrasonic
cleaner and whip up a batch of Parafin, Teflon and molybdenum disulfide.

Its pretty unlikely that an ultrasonic cleaner will accomplish any better
application of lubricant than simply applying it and working it in by using
it.

PTFE inhibits the surface binding of molybdenem disulphide, so the moly
should be worn in first. Both are exellent "friction modifiers" - and if you
do it in the right order; the two together are greater than the sum of the
parts.

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 12:45:32 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 10:05:35 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
I recently came across a site that tests bicycle chains
http://www.friction-facts.com/ that may be of interest to some.

Rather than the "yarebut" school of argument this site actually tests
stuff in a laboratory.

Possibly of interest to some is the "Ultrafast Chain" which is a
Simano Dura-Ace CN-7901 chain which has been "run in" on the testing
machine then ultrasonically cleaned and lubricated with a mixture of
"Paraffin, PTFE and MOS2" by using an ultrasonic cleaner loaded with
the lube mix and immersing the chain in the cleaner bath, The chain is
than run in again for a short on the test machine. The testing lab
says that this chain can save as much as 10 watts over the worst chain
that they have tested. ( 10/250 = 4%)

They also say that a cyclist can achieve nearly their test figures by
carefully cleaning and lubricating a chain by hand.

Being that I don't want to pay for the test results, can you explain what it means by 10 watts over the worst chain they tested? Did they do lubricant testing on the same chain? What is the before and after difference on the same chain -- assuming I wanted to buy an ultrasonic cleaner and whip up a batch of Parafin, Teflon and molybdenum disulfide.

Sounds like product placement for Molten Speed Wax. Damn. You can go hog wild on the chain cleaning/waxing thing. https://moltenspeedwax.com/collectio...-miscellaneous

Maybe I'll get the $32 ultrasonic cleaner from Harbor Freight. http://www.harborfreight.com/ultraso...aner-3305.html

-- Jay Beattie.

Stingy?

(No I didn't pay for the tests either :-) But quite a number of sites
apparently did as much of the testing is described elsewhere.

Bike Radar for example, describes the 10 watts as the difference
between the "worst case scenario of the worst performing chain
lubricated with the least effective lubricant" and the "best chain
tested with the most effective lubricant".

And, as I wrote, the testing lab guy reckons that you can very similar
results using less expensive equipment

My guess is that the average bloke, who doesn't like to do bike
maintenance probably won't be interested, but as I wrote it "may be of
interest to some". Perhaps those who are really, truly, serious about
performance will go "hog wild". After all 10 watts on a 250 watts
system is about a 4% increase in efficiency.

Maybe I'll get the $32 ultrasonic cleaner from Harbor Freight. http://www.harborfreight.com/ultraso...aner-3305.html

-- Jay Beattie.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 9:09:02 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 12:45:32 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
snip

(No I didn't pay for the tests either :-) But quite a number of sites
apparently did as much of the testing is described elsewhere.

Bike Radar for example, describes the 10 watts as the difference
between the "worst case scenario of the worst performing chain
lubricated with the least effective lubricant" and the "best chain
tested with the most effective lubricant".

And, as I wrote, the testing lab guy reckons that you can very similar
results using less expensive equipment

My guess is that the average bloke, who doesn't like to do bike
maintenance probably won't be interested, but as I wrote it "may be of
interest to some". Perhaps those who are really, truly, serious about
performance will go "hog wild". After all 10 watts on a 250 watts
system is about a 4% increase in efficiency.

Maybe I'll get the $32 ultrasonic cleaner from Harbor Freight. http://www.harborfreight.com/ultraso...aner-3305.html

There must be a published test somewhere discussing the efficiency of the chains themselves. It might be that most of the saved watts are from the chain and not the lubricant. I would be curious to see the dollars per wattt analysis, e.g. a Dura Ace or Campy mega dollar chain versus a KMC, both with the same lube -- or the same chains with different lubes (which I think was done with the parafin tests people have repeated. I remember seeing that in Velo News).

-- Jay Beattie.

On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 10:05:35 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
I recently came across a site that tests bicycle chains
http://www.friction-facts.com/ that may be of interest to some.

Rather than the "yarebut" school of argument this site actually tests
stuff in a laboratory.

Possibly of interest to some is the "Ultrafast Chain" which is a
Simano Dura-Ace CN-7901 chain which has been "run in" on the testing
machine then ultrasonically cleaned and lubricated with a mixture of
"Paraffin, PTFE and MOS2" by using an ultrasonic cleaner loaded with
the lube mix and immersing the chain in the cleaner bath, The chain is
than run in again for a short on the test machine. The testing lab
says that this chain can save as much as 10 watts over the worst chain
that they have tested. ( 10/250 = 4%)

They also say that a cyclist can achieve nearly their test figures by
carefully cleaning and lubricating a chain by hand.
--
cheers,

John B.

10% of 4 watts isn't worth bothering with. That's a savings of less than half a watt and most people can generate a minimum of 50 watts with the better over 100 watts for extended periods.

On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 07:09:51 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 9:09:02 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 12:45:32 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
snip

(No I didn't pay for the tests either :-) But quite a number of sites
apparently did as much of the testing is described elsewhere.

Bike Radar for example, describes the 10 watts as the difference
between the "worst case scenario of the worst performing chain
lubricated with the least effective lubricant" and the "best chain
tested with the most effective lubricant".

And, as I wrote, the testing lab guy reckons that you can very similar
results using less expensive equipment

My guess is that the average bloke, who doesn't like to do bike
maintenance probably won't be interested, but as I wrote it "may be of
interest to some". Perhaps those who are really, truly, serious about
performance will go "hog wild". After all 10 watts on a 250 watts
system is about a 4% increase in efficiency.

Maybe I'll get the $32 ultrasonic cleaner from Harbor Freight. http://www.harborfreight.com/ultraso...aner-3305.html

There must be a published test somewhere discussing the efficiency of the chains themselves. It might be that most of the saved watts are from the chain and not the lubricant. I would be curious to see the dollars per wattt analysis, e.g. a Dura Ace or Campy mega dollar chain versus a KMC, both with the same lube -- or the same chains with different lubes (which I think was done with the parafin tests people have repeated. I remember seeing that in Velo News).

-- Jay Beattie.

The testing I mentioned contained a report entitled "Dry Chain
Efficiency Test" - "In this continuation of the Dirty Chain Efficiency
Test, the 6 chains were completely stripped of lube and tested. We
often wondered how much friction is created with no lube and bare
metal-metal contact within the chain."

Only $7.95, or the entire package of 14 tests for $14.95. See
http://www.friction-facts.com/test-r...report-package

Whippermann made tests, that surprisingly showed their chain as
superior? This was chain wear and lists 19 chains.

There are a number of tests at
http://www.friction-facts.com/about/recent-media

I have never seen a chain test that compared cost to efficiency. The
Whippermann test is probably the closest as they tested 19 chains,
giving the names of each, so one could do a cost and wear rate
analysis.

My guess is that those looking for the last, tiny, milliwatt of power
are probably not extremely concerned with cost :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 09:08:14 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 10:05:35 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
I recently came across a site that tests bicycle chains
http://www.friction-facts.com/ that may be of interest to some.

Rather than the "yarebut" school of argument this site actually tests
stuff in a laboratory.

Possibly of interest to some is the "Ultrafast Chain" which is a
Simano Dura-Ace CN-7901 chain which has been "run in" on the testing
machine then ultrasonically cleaned and lubricated with a mixture of
"Paraffin, PTFE and MOS2" by using an ultrasonic cleaner loaded with
the lube mix and immersing the chain in the cleaner bath, The chain is
than run in again for a short on the test machine. The testing lab
says that this chain can save as much as 10 watts over the worst chain
that they have tested. ( 10/250 = 4%)

They also say that a cyclist can achieve nearly their test figures by
carefully cleaning and lubricating a chain by hand.
--
cheers,

John B.

10% of 4 watts isn't worth bothering with. That's a savings of less than half a watt and most people can generate a minimum of 50 watts with the better over 100 watts for extended periods.

It was 4% of 250 watts, which seems to be the usual power figure
attributed to bicycle riders, although the professionals can certainly
exceed that number. Chris Froome was credited with a measured 414
watts during a 15km climb during the Tour de France. A 4% increase in
power might well have been significant.
--
cheers,

John B.