Remarkable difference in chain wear

On 4/25/2017 3:35 PM, wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 10:06:03 PM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/25/2017 2:58 PM, wrote:
Mid 2014 I build two new road bikes, one Al and one CF. Both frames of the same brand (Canyon). CF bike is equipped with a Campy Super Record 11 sp gruppo and the Al one with a Campy Chorus 11 sp gruppo. Everything brand new. Because they are of the same brand the geometry is exactly the same and I have no preference for one of the bikes and the choice for a ride is random. So far I put 9342 km on the CF bike and 7563 km on the Al one. On both bikes the first chain is still on, both Record 11 speed chains. Since I am spoiled with the lifetime of Campy chains I don't check the chain wear very often. Lately I noticed a noisy drivetrain on the Al bike and I checked the chain wear. To my surprise it showed a significant wear. The cassette is shot on that bike for sure. I was worried about the wear of the chain on the CF bike since I put 2000 more km on it and the Super Record cassette is much more expensive. I took of the chains of both bikes (for the first time on the CF bike btw)
and compared them to a new chain to determine the elongation. The difference in chain wear was remarkable! I took some pictures tonight:

https://goo.gl/photos/PYS6h1GjPabv8dpH7

The only difference I can think of is that on the Al bike I used Rohloff chain lube for a while instead of the wax based lube I normally use. Because it left an incredible mess I stopped using it, cleaned the chain and started using the wax based lube again.

I am puzzled.

What was the wax based lube?

It looks like 3mm stretch on the CF with Record, vs. 13.5mm stretch on
the Aluminum bike with Chorus. Am I reading that right?

That is correct.


Adjusting for mileage, you had 5.5 times the wear on the Chorus bike.

Converting units to match an ancient U.S. magazine article: The Record
bike had 9432km/3mm or 49,000 miles per inch of chain stretch. The
Chorus bike had 7563km/13.5mm or 8870 miles per inch.

These are within the amazingly wide range quoted in this article
https://www.flickr.com/photos/169722...posted-public/
and
https://www.flickr.com/photos/169722...posted-public/

He found as low as 2700 miles per inch of stretch with liquid chain
lube, and as high as 50,000 miles with pure paraffin wax. So again, your
figures are within his ranges.

OK, but it is something I never encountered so far on my road bikes. I am used to 3 mm stretch after 8000 km using my lube and cleaning regime. Most of the time I put on a new chain because shifting gets a bit sloppy because of the lateral play, not the stretch. The cassettes last 3 chains that way.


You don't say how long you used the Rohloff lube.

1000-1500 km I guess.

I wonder if it picked
up road dust and carried it into the chain's internal spaces, and did so
to produce faster wear even after you returned to wax.


That is my theory also.

Lou, eleven chain is smaller dimensioned than 10, 10 smaller
than 9 etc. The newer your gear system, the less distance
you should expect on a chain, all else being equal.


--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 1:29:36 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 9:42:19 PM UTC+2, wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 11:58:20 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Mid 2014 I build two new road bikes, one Al and one CF. Both frames of the same brand (Canyon). CF bike is equipped with a Campy Super Record 11 sp gruppo and the Al one with a Campy Chorus 11 sp gruppo. Everything brand new. Because they are of the same brand the geometry is exactly the same and I have no preference for one of the bikes and the choice for a ride is random. So far I put 9342 km on the CF bike and 7563 km on the Al one. On both bikes the first chain is still on, both Record 11 speed chains. Since I am spoiled with the lifetime of Campy chains I don't check the chain wear very often. Lately I noticed a noisy drivetrain on the Al bike and I checked the chain wear. To my surprise it showed a significant wear. The cassette is shot on that bike for sure. I was worried about the wear of the chain on the CF bike since I put 2000 more km on it and the Super Record cassette is much more expensive. I took of the chains of both bikes (for the first time on the CF bike btw) and compared them to a new chain to determine the elongation. The difference in chain wear was remarkable! I took some pictures tonight:

https://goo.gl/photos/PYS6h1GjPabv8dpH7

The only difference I can think of is that on the Al bike I used Rohloff chain lube for a while instead of the wax based lube I normally use. Because it left an incredible mess I stopped using it, cleaned the chain and started using the wax based lube again.

I am puzzled.

Lou

Cleaning a chain kills them faster than leaving an externally dirty chain. While I have chain cleaners and I have powerful stuff to wash off the lube I have found that the original chain grease installed by the manufacturer is by FAR the best lubricant. I get thousands of miles without wear with only the original nasty chain grease but only perhaps 1500 miles using over-the-counter chain lubes.

For your information the first think I do when I put on a new chain is wash out the factory stuff. It attracts to much dirt and don't mix with the wax base lube I use.


So what probably happened was that you washed that grease out from the inside of the links and figured that your Rohloff chain lube was sufficient..

What I believe is that the Rohloff lube attract to much dirt and sand that worked its way into the internals. After a short time it was an incredible mess.

Lou

Start over. And USE THE SAME LUBE NEXT TIME

On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 11:58:18 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Mid 2014 I build two new road bikes, one Al and one CF. Both frames of the same brand (Canyon). CF bike is equipped with a Campy Super Record 11 sp gruppo and the Al one with a Campy Chorus 11 sp gruppo. Everything brand new. Because they are of the same brand the geometry is exactly the same and I have no preference for one of the bikes and the choice for a ride is random. So far I put 9342 km on the CF bike and 7563 km on the Al one. On both bikes the first chain is still on, both Record 11 speed chains. Since I am spoiled with the lifetime of Campy chains I don't check the chain wear very often. Lately I noticed a noisy drivetrain on the Al bike and I checked the chain wear. To my surprise it showed a significant wear. The cassette is shot on that bike for sure. I was worried about the wear of the chain on the CF bike since I put 2000 more km on it and the Super Record cassette is much more expensive. I took of the chains of both bikes (for the first time on the CF bike btw) and
compared them to a new chain to determine the elongation. The difference in chain wear was remarkable! I took some pictures tonight:

https://goo.gl/photos/PYS6h1GjPabv8dpH7

The only difference I can think of is that on the Al bike I used Rohloff chain lube for a while instead of the wax based lube I normally use. Because it left an incredible mess I stopped using it, cleaned the chain and started using the wax based lube again.

I am puzzled.

Lou

Your photos are bit confusing. The third photos shows three chain. One
chain seems to be an entire link different in length and one chain
seems to be about the width of a pin different in length.

You might read Sheldon's site but from memory he recommended chain
change when wear reached 1/16 inch in a one foot length of chain. Or
about a 6% "stretch". Note that bicycle chains are measured in inches.

Note too that while the term "stretch" is sometimes used in reference
to chain wear of course the chain doesn't actually "stretch" but
elongates due to wear in the links.

As to why one chain wore more then the other it is difficult to
determine as it could range from dirt in the links to higher pedal
loads due to a difference in gear ratios, to a difference in alloys
used to manufacturer the chain. If one chain is an 11speed chain while
the other is not then, as the 11 speed chain is narrower the load (in
PSI) is greater on the 11 speed with likely greater wear.

On 26/04/17 11:28, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 11:58:18 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Mid 2014 I build two new road bikes, one Al and one CF. Both frames
of the same brand (Canyon). CF bike is equipped with a Campy Super
Record 11 sp gruppo and the Al one with a Campy Chorus 11 sp
gruppo. Everything brand new. Because they are of the same brand
the geometry is exactly the same and I have no preference for one
of the bikes and the choice for a ride is random. So far I put 9342
km on the CF bike and 7563 km on the Al one. On both bikes the
first chain is still on, both Record 11 speed chains. Since I am
spoiled with the lifetime of Campy chains I don't check the chain
wear very often. Lately I noticed a noisy drivetrain on the Al bike
and I checked the chain wear. To my surprise it showed a
significant wear. The cassette is shot on that bike for sure. I was
worried about the wear of the chain on the CF bike since I put 2000
more km on it and the Super Record cassette is much more expensive.
I took of the chains of both bikes (for the first time on the CF
bike btw) and compared them to a new chain to determine the
elongation. The difference in chain wear was remarkable! I took
some pictures tonight:

https://goo.gl/photos/PYS6h1GjPabv8dpH7

The only difference I can think of is that on the Al bike I used
Rohloff chain lube for a while instead of the wax based lube I
normally use. Because it left an incredible mess I stopped using
it, cleaned the chain and started using the wax based lube again.

I am puzzled.

Lou

Your photos are bit confusing. The third photos shows three chain.
One chain seems to be an entire link different in length and one
chain seems to be about the width of a pin different in length.

The chain furthest from the ruler has a plastic tie through the outer
plate holes. I believe this to be the characteristic of a new Campy
chain. Lou undoubtedly included that as a reference new chain.

You might read Sheldon's site but from memory he recommended chain
change when wear reached 1/16 inch in a one foot length of chain. Or
about a 6% "stretch". Note that bicycle chains are measured in
inches.

You mean chains are measured in 25.4mm units, and 6% of which is 1.524mm.

Note that many use metric units these days.


Note too that while the term "stretch" is sometimes used in
reference to chain wear of course the chain doesn't actually
"stretch" but elongates due to wear in the links.

I'd hazard a guess that Lou knows that.

As to why one chain wore more then the other it is difficult to
determine as it could range from dirt in the links to higher pedal
loads due to a difference in gear ratios, to a difference in alloys
used to manufacturer the chain. If one chain is an 11speed chain
while the other is not then, as the 11 speed chain is narrower the
load (in PSI) is greater on the 11 speed with likely greater wear.


Reread Lou's post. "both Record 11 speed chains".

The biggest difference seems to be the lubricant.

--
JS

On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:45:55 +1000, James
wrote:

On 26/04/17 11:28, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 11:58:18 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Mid 2014 I build two new road bikes, one Al and one CF. Both frames
of the same brand (Canyon). CF bike is equipped with a Campy Super
Record 11 sp gruppo and the Al one with a Campy Chorus 11 sp
gruppo. Everything brand new. Because they are of the same brand
the geometry is exactly the same and I have no preference for one
of the bikes and the choice for a ride is random. So far I put 9342
km on the CF bike and 7563 km on the Al one. On both bikes the
first chain is still on, both Record 11 speed chains. Since I am
spoiled with the lifetime of Campy chains I don't check the chain
wear very often. Lately I noticed a noisy drivetrain on the Al bike
and I checked the chain wear. To my surprise it showed a
significant wear. The cassette is shot on that bike for sure. I was
worried about the wear of the chain on the CF bike since I put 2000
more km on it and the Super Record cassette is much more expensive.
I took of the chains of both bikes (for the first time on the CF
bike btw) and compared them to a new chain to determine the
elongation. The difference in chain wear was remarkable! I took
some pictures tonight:

https://goo.gl/photos/PYS6h1GjPabv8dpH7

The only difference I can think of is that on the Al bike I used
Rohloff chain lube for a while instead of the wax based lube I
normally use. Because it left an incredible mess I stopped using
it, cleaned the chain and started using the wax based lube again.

I am puzzled.

Lou

Your photos are bit confusing. The third photos shows three chain.
One chain seems to be an entire link different in length and one
chain seems to be about the width of a pin different in length.

The chain furthest from the ruler has a plastic tie through the outer
plate holes. I believe this to be the characteristic of a new Campy
chain. Lou undoubtedly included that as a reference new chain.

You might read Sheldon's site but from memory he recommended chain
change when wear reached 1/16 inch in a one foot length of chain. Or
about a 6% "stretch". Note that bicycle chains are measured in
inches.

You mean chains are measured in 25.4mm units, and 6% of which is 1.524mm.


Well, actually they are 1/2 inch pitch. Which seems to be
1.27000000E+01 (mm) if one wishes to use some strange French measuring
system based on the estimated distance from the north pole rather then
the length of the King's foot, which they lacked as they had chopped
off his head :-).

Note that many use metric units these days.


Note too that while the term "stretch" is sometimes used in
reference to chain wear of course the chain doesn't actually
"stretch" but elongates due to wear in the links.

I'd hazard a guess that Lou knows that.

He probably does but I used the word "stretch" and as this is Usenet
someone is sure to remind me that chains don't stretch"-)


As to why one chain wore more then the other it is difficult to
determine as it could range from dirt in the links to higher pedal
loads due to a difference in gear ratios, to a difference in alloys
used to manufacturer the chain. If one chain is an 11speed chain
while the other is not then, as the 11 speed chain is narrower the
load (in PSI) is greater on the 11 speed with likely greater wear.


Reread Lou's post. "both Record 11 speed chains".

The biggest difference seems to be the lubricant.

On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 11:58:20 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Mid 2014 I build two new road bikes, one Al and one CF. Both frames of the same brand (Canyon). CF bike is equipped with a Campy Super Record 11 sp gruppo and the Al one with a Campy Chorus 11 sp gruppo. Everything brand new. Because they are of the same brand the geometry is exactly the same and I have no preference for one of the bikes and the choice for a ride is random. So far I put 9342 km on the CF bike and 7563 km on the Al one. On both bikes the first chain is still on, both Record 11 speed chains. Since I am spoiled with the lifetime of Campy chains I don't check the chain wear very often. Lately I noticed a noisy drivetrain on the Al bike and I checked the chain wear. To my surprise it showed a significant wear. The cassette is shot on that bike for sure. I was worried about the wear of the chain on the CF bike since I put 2000 more km on it and the Super Record cassette is much more expensive.

Can we see pics of the cassettes?

On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 7:39:43 PM UTC+2, Doug Landau wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 11:58:20 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Mid 2014 I build two new road bikes, one Al and one CF. Both frames of the same brand (Canyon). CF bike is equipped with a Campy Super Record 11 sp gruppo and the Al one with a Campy Chorus 11 sp gruppo. Everything brand new. Because they are of the same brand the geometry is exactly the same and I have no preference for one of the bikes and the choice for a ride is random. So far I put 9342 km on the CF bike and 7563 km on the Al one. On both bikes the first chain is still on, both Record 11 speed chains. Since I am spoiled with the lifetime of Campy chains I don't check the chain wear very often. Lately I noticed a noisy drivetrain on the Al bike and I checked the chain wear. To my surprise it showed a significant wear. The cassette is shot on that bike for sure. I was worried about the wear of the chain on the CF bike since I put 2000 more km on it and the Super Record cassette is much more expensive.

Can we see pics of the cassettes?

The worn cassette of the Al bike is in the trash. The cassette of the CF bike don't show any wear and didn't skip during the ride this evening with the new chain I put on.

Lou

On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 13:29:33 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 9:42:19 PM UTC+2,
wrote:

Cleaning a chain kills them faster than leaving an externally dirty
chain. While I have chain cleaners and I have powerful stuff to wash
off the lube I have found that the original chain grease installed by
the manufacturer is by FAR the best lubricant. I get thousands of
miles without wear with only the original nasty chain grease but only
perhaps 1500 miles using over-the-counter chain lubes.

For your information the first think I do when I put on a new chain is
wash out the factory stuff. It attracts to much dirt and don't mix
with the wax base lube I use.


So what probably happened was that you washed that grease out from
the inside of the links and figured that your Rohloff chain lube was
sufficient.

What I believe is that the Rohloff lube attract to much dirt and sand
that worked its way into the internals. After a short time it was an
incredible mess.

Years ago, Jobst had posted his approach which IIRC was to remove the
chain, put it in a jar of kerosene, soak and agitate and then relube
with motor oil. IIRC he had two chains and alternated them.

Someone in the newsgroup halved a chain and used two quicklinks to be
able to separate them. He treated 1/2 of the chain the way Jobst did
and just occasionally relubed the other half. The washed and relubed
chain showed much greater wear than the one that was just re-oiled
sometimes. the conclusion, IIRC, was that washing the chain transported
fine grit into the links and acted as a grinding slurry.

Chains that run in a chaincase and an oil bath, kept from from grit and
sand, dirt, etc., last a really long time. Timing chains in an engine,
for example, last 100,000 miles pretty easily. Bike chains are mostly
exposed to the environment and get fouled quickly.

I have found that "dry" lubes in a bottle are never really dry, and
collect just as much crap. Wax/paraffin (the US definition of the
latter, I don't know what it's called in countries that use "paraffin"
for diesel fuel) is a nuisance to apply and has to be reapplied fairly
often, since it gets squeezed out of the load bearing surfaces in the
links quickly. I've never found a liquid based wax lube that was worth
a damn, which brings me to my question: Lou, what wax lube are you
using?

On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 1:26:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 9:31:41 PM UTC+2, wrote:
Opinion. I would guess you rode different terrain on the two bikes. Maybe more hard sprinting or climbing on the worn out aluminum chain bike. Easy flat downhill tailwind riding on the carbon chain bike. Or you chose the aluminum chain bike when the weather was rainy, roads dirty. And rode the carbon chain on sunny nice days. Despite your insistence that you had no preference in bikes, you obviously chose the carbon for more riding mileage. Some preference made you ride it more miles. If you were completely impartial in choice, the mileage would be much closer over three years. So type of terrain, effort of riding, and weather conditions caused the chain wear difference.

We have only one terrain her in the Netherlands ;-) The difference in mileage can partly be explained by the fact that I build the Al bike 4 months later. Weather is certainly not a criteria which bike I use. When it rains I use the bike that is the dirtiest at that moment. My theory is that the time I used the Rohloff lube ****ed up that chain because it attracts dirt like horseshoe attracts flies.

What is your wax lube formula?

-- Jay Beattie.

On 4/26/2017 7:26 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:

Years ago, Jobst had posted his approach which IIRC was to remove the
chain, put it in a jar of kerosene, soak and agitate and then relube
with motor oil. IIRC he had two chains and alternated them.

Jobst was brilliant. But some of his opinions were just opinions. I
greatly prefer data, which is why I linked the images from that 1977
article.

Someone in the newsgroup halved a chain and used two quicklinks to be
able to separate them. He treated 1/2 of the chain the way Jobst did
and just occasionally relubed the other half. The washed and relubed
chain showed much greater wear than the one that was just re-oiled
sometimes. the conclusion, IIRC, was that washing the chain transported
fine grit into the links and acted as a grinding slurry.

That seems like a pretty good comparison test of those two methods.

Chains that run in a chaincase and an oil bath, kept from from grit and
sand, dirt, etc., last a really long time. Timing chains in an engine,
for example, last 100,000 miles pretty easily. Bike chains are mostly
exposed to the environment and get fouled quickly.

Right. What we do with bike chains would violate most engineering
standards for chain drives.

I have found that "dry" lubes in a bottle are never really dry, and
collect just as much crap. Wax/paraffin (the US definition of the
latter, I don't know what it's called in countries that use "paraffin"
for diesel fuel) is a nuisance to apply and has to be reapplied fairly
often, since it gets squeezed out of the load bearing surfaces in the
links quickly.

I disagree, at least, depending how you apply it. As mentioned, my
method is not to remove the chain and soak it in molten wax. Instead,
the chain stays on the bike, is warmed with a propane torch, the wax+oil
mix is crayoned on, then reheated so it flows into the chain's innards.
(This has some similarity to the "just re-oiled" method above.) It takes
perhaps five minutes, certainly less than ten, and lasts many hundreds
of miles.

I've never found a liquid based wax lube that was worth
a damn, which brings me to my question: Lou, what wax lube are you
using?

I wondered that as well.


--
- Frank Krygowski