Actual data for the chain cleaning debate
TBGibb
following method for comparing two methods.
1. Take one PC-48 chain, size it for the bike and then "break" it into two
equal sections
2. Join the two sections with second "Power Link."
3. Mark a section by cutting a shallow "+" sign in a rivet with a Dremel and a
cut off wheel so the individual chain sections would always be cleaned by the
same method.
4. Clean one section (called "washed") by thrashing it in paint thinner,
changing the thinner until there is a clean wash. It took 5-6 to do this. I
always used fresh (instead of thinner that was being reused by allowing it to
settle prior to being filtered through a coffee filter) thinner for the last
2-3 washes.
5. Clean the other section (called "unwashed") by throughly wiping it off with
a rag and then brushing it with a tooth brush.
6. Otherwise treat both sections exactly the same oiling both with Quaker State
chain saw bar oil.
7. Measure the chain sections as follows:
a. hang the chain section with a five pound weight on it (a set of
automobile cable chains).
b. measure with an 18 inch ruler that is ruled to 1/32 in the first inch.
Using that long a ruler allowed us to measure between the 1 inch
mark and the 13 inch mark so we could use that first inch and
extrapolate to 1/64.
c. have my wife confirm the measurements (we argued about them several
times).
8. Put the chain back together, oil it, wipe it down to remove excess oil,
replace it on the bike and ride it until the chain needs cleaning again.
9. Repeat until 24 links in one section measures 12 1/16.
Results:
Date Miles Elongation Elongation Notes
of washed of unwashed
chain chain
07/11/03 0
07/14/03 137.1 0 0 Dusty and
noisy
07/23/03 328.6 1/64 1/64 Dusty and
slightly noisy
08/01/03 607.24 1/64 1/64
08/11/03 819.71 1/64 1/64
09/02/03 1076.67 1/64 1/32
rain
09/19/03 1430.39 1/64 1/32
noisy
10/23/03 1801.17 3/64 1/32
11/07/03 2257.55 3/64 1/32
01/05/04 2739.52 1/16 1/32
Very dirty and noisy
Conclusions:
It isn't worth it to soak a chain out in solvent. I've stopped doing so, but I
will be very careful to measure often.
The presence of my wife Susan (an unbiased observer) in this was essential, I
(she) caught myself (me) seeing more wear in the "unwashed" chain than in the
"washed" one early in the trial.
Comments:
It was not easy to measure the chain to the 1/64 level, we spent some time
getting the light right so we could see the marks and either took the glasses
off (Susan) or used 4X readers (me) and we still had to work at it.
I used a needed fresh cassette at the begining.
The bike was my "beater" bike, a Cannondale M700. I use it for commuting and
errands. Part of the riding was on gravel trails.
The method could easily be used to compare other cleaning methods and other
lubricants.
I was prepared to take SRAM to task for advocating cleaning chains by wiping
them down with some kind of degreaser on the rag (trying to sell extra chains
are you?) HA! or NOT!
Tom Gibb <TBG...@aol.com>
Jose Rizal
> To interject some real data into the chain lubrication debate I devised the
> following method for comparing two methods.
> 6. Otherwise treat both sections exactly the same oiling both with Quaker State
> chain saw bar oil.
You might be able to get better results if you measure before putting
the oil on.
> Conclusions:
> It isn't worth it to soak a chain out in solvent. I've stopped doing so, but I
> will be very careful to measure often.
How about just shaking in solvent just once, instead of 5-6 as you did?
It will be interesting to see if washing in solvent just the once is as
effective as washing many times.
S. Anderson
news:20040106001330...@mb-m28.aol.com...
> To interject some real data into the chain lubrication debate I devised
the
> following method for comparing two methods.
<<snip NASA test procedure..>>
>
> Tom Gibb <TBG...@aol.com>
Yup, I concluded that years ago. My aggravation caused by cleaning a filthy
chain != cost of a new chain. In face, aggravation cost caused by cleaning
a filthy chain > cost of new chain. I blow the $25 for a new chain every
year and toss the old one in the garbage. I just keep applying teflon "dry"
lube every other ride or so and that works for me. Scrape off the
accumulated crud (which is hard as a rock..) once a month or so..works for
me, but I ride in mostly good conditions. Your mileage may vary...
Cheers,
Scott..
Peter
> TBGibb:
>
>
>>To interject some real data into the chain lubrication debate I devised the
>>following method for comparing two methods.
>
>
>>6. Otherwise treat both sections exactly the same oiling both with Quaker State
>>chain saw bar oil.
>
>
> You might be able to get better results if you measure before putting
> the oil on.
>
>
>>Conclusions:
>>It isn't worth it to soak a chain out in solvent. I've stopped doing so, but I
>>will be very careful to measure often.
>
>
> How about just shaking in solvent just once, instead of 5-6 as you did?
For what purpose? Cleaning the chain thoroughly had no beneficial effect
that could be measured compared to no cleaning so why would you bother
trying any levels of superficial cleaning?
> It will be interesting to see if washing in solvent just the once is as
> effective as washing many times.
But based on the initial experiment "as effective as washing many times" is
the same as not at all effective.
I've never done such a careful evaluation as Tom did, but my impression in
comparing notes with others was that my chains and cassettes last just as
long with just re-oiling as those that are carefully cleaned periodically.
Kenny Lee
stopped doing this out of laziness. Like Scott writes I just put on some
lube whenever my chain seems to want some. My only gripe is that after a
while you get all this crud build-up on the jockey wheels.
Kenny Lee
Derk
> The presence of my wife Susan (an unbiased observer) in this was
> essential,
She must love you very much ;-)
Greets, Derk
Art Harris
> Results:
>
> Date Miles Elongation Elongation
> chain chain
This data indicates that NOT washing the chain in solvent doubles
chain life. How do you explain that? Chain "stretch" is caused by wear
on the pins. Washing in solvent should remove internal grit better
than scrubbing with a toothbrush, and therefore result in longer life.
Are you sure you didn't mislabel the two chain halves? Also, just out
of curiosity, did you leave the original packing grease on when the
chain was installed?
Art Harris
Tim McNamara
> TBGibb wrote:
>> Results:
>>
>> Date Miles Elongation Elongation
>> of washed of unwashed
>> chain chain
>> 01/05/04 2739.52 1/16" 1/32"
>
>
> This data indicates that NOT washing the chain in solvent doubles
> chain life.
Right, that's exactly what his data shows and it contradicts the
conventional wisdom about chain cleaning and lubrication. Which
means further investigation and independent verification is needed.
IMHO a better solvent would be kerosene.
> How do you explain that? Chain "stretch" is caused by wear on the
> pins. Washing in solvent should remove internal grit better than
> scrubbing with a toothbrush, and therefore result in longer life.
*Should* is the key word here, of course. It makes logical sense that
this would be the case.
OTOH, being lazy I rarely do this myself and just wipe the chain down
with a rag, lube it, wipe off the excess, and go. I get about 3,000
miles out of a chain; my Campy Chorus 9sp cassette has been in place
since 1999 and still runs perfectly with brand new chains, despite
having about 10,000 miles on it. OTOH I have to replace cogs on my
Sachs ARIS freewheels about every 2 years (say, roughy 5,000 miles on
that bike), the metal seeming to be much softer than the chromed steel
Campy uses.
I experimented with ProLink this summer out of curiosity and found
that it worked very well. I got about 400 miles out of each
lubrication before the chain got noisy, better than any of the other
boutique bike lubes I've tried. Boeshield was satisfactory but not
superior to good old motor oil.
> Are you sure you didn't mislabel the two chain halves? Also, just
> out of curiosity, did you leave the original packing grease on when
> the chain was installed?
Good questions.
Bruni
was that the lube deep in the bush/pin interface is not that contaminated
that removing it does more good than harm since reintroducing lube deep in
the recesses is often incomplete. This is particularly true as the carrier
solvent (not in bar oil) content of some lubes is quite high.
Tom
--
Bruni Bicycles
"Where art meets science"
brunibicycles.com
410.426.3420
Art Harris <n2...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:774a2c02.04010...@posting.google.com...
jim beam
campy seem bipolar on the subject:
http://www.campagnolo.com/pdf/140-cat9V-2000.pdf specifies no slovents;
http://www.campagnolo.com/pdf/C10HD_L_CHAIN.pdf advocates solvent use.
shimano specify detergent:
http://bike.shimano.com/product_images/CN/si_images/CN_HG93_SI.pdf
personally, i'm lube only, no solvent.
Rick Onanian
>TBGibb wrote:
>> Date Miles Elongation Elongation
>> of washed of unwashed
>
>
>This data indicates that NOT washing the chain in solvent doubles
>chain life. How do you explain that? Chain "stretch" is caused by wear
>on the pins. Washing in solvent should remove internal grit better
>than scrubbing with a toothbrush, and therefore result in longer life.
I imagine that washing in solvent also removes internal lubrication
better, and probably leaves some solvent in it's place. Then, when
you lube it, the lube either never displaces the solvent, or is
diluted by the solvent.
>Are you sure you didn't mislabel the two chain halves? Also, just out
>of curiosity, did you leave the original packing grease on when the
>chain was installed?
The original grease could make a difference too; and it would
definitely be removed by the solvent.
It all certainly supports my habit of just adding lube and then
buying a chain when I need one -- why spend so many hours over the
life of the chain when a new one is $25?
>Art Harris
--
Rick Onanian
Steven M. Scharf
the
> following method for comparing two methods.
> I was prepared to take SRAM to task for advocating cleaning chains by
wiping
> them down with some kind of degreaser on the rag (trying to sell extra
chains
> are you?) HA! or NOT!
Duh.
People get too anal about chain cleaning and spend way too much time and
money on it. The funny thing is that they often don't even clean the chain
propery or lube the chain correctly when they are done cleaning it. Wiping
with a rag then oiling it with foaming motorcycle chain lube is more than
sufficient.
If you want to get the chain really, really clean, then put it repeatedly
through a chain cleaner with fresh non-water based solvent, until the
solvent is clean; simply soaking it in solvent does little, you want the
links in motion as they pass through the solvent. Then soak it in chain saw
oil or spray with motorcycle chain lube.
Werehatrack
said:
>This data indicates that NOT washing the chain in solvent doubles
>chain life. How do you explain that?
I think that the point was to collect data, not necessarily to explain
it in his case.
I can think of some possible factors that may be involved. First, as
you touch on farther down, the washing may have removed the original
packing lube and eliminated the benefit provided by its presence.
Second, if the solvent stripped the lube completely, and the
reapplication was not getting into all of the pivots properly, then
the "washed" chain may have been operating partially dry. Third, some
dirt's presence between the side plates may have been acting to reduce
the amount of fresh grit getting to the pivots; dirt protecing against
dirt intrusion, as it were. Fourth, if the solvent was not drying out
completely before the oil was applied, the solvent may have reduced
the lube's effectiveness. There are probably other things that I
haven't thought of as well.
>Chain "stretch" is caused by wear
>on the pins. Washing in solvent should remove internal grit better
>than scrubbing with a toothbrush, and therefore result in longer life.
Should, but...
>Are you sure you didn't mislabel the two chain halves? Also, just out
>of curiosity, did you leave the original packing grease on when the
>chain was installed?
If the SRAM lube (which has been identified, and can be purchased in
cases of 12 400ml cans for a bit over $20 per can) was present on both
chain segments when the test started, and was effectively removed at
first cleaning from the "washed" chain but *not* from the "unwashed",
then I would say that the conditions did not, in fact, represent a
single-variant test. It is still interesting, though. It would be
even more interesting to re-do the test with a pair of chain pieces
which had both been washed (and dried) *before* being put on, and
which were lubed *solely* with the same lube from that point onward.
If the "washed" chain were also permitted to completely dry so that no
solvent remained before the lube was reapplied, this would reduce the
variables to one; the cleaning method. I'm not sure which way I would
predict the outcome of a re-test as described. At this point,
however, I believe that there is reason to avoid stripping the SRAM
factory lube from a chain, based on the test performed.
--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something,
it's also possible that I'm busy.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
Matt O'Toole
> Are you sure you didn't mislabel the two chain halves?
I don't think it would matter. No matter how you clean either half of the
chain, the dirt probably becomes evenly distributed after awhile. It rubs onto
the cogs and chainrings, and then back into the chain all around. IOW, I don't
think this is much of a test.
> Also, just out
> of curiosity, did you leave the original packing grease on when the
> chain was installed?
I don't think that would matter either. The original packing grease is as good
a lube as any.
Matt O.
Matt O'Toole
> The folks at Rholoff advised much as your results indicated. The
> reasoning was that the lube deep in the bush/pin interface is not
> that contaminated that removing it does more good than harm since
> reintroducing lube deep in the recesses is often incomplete.
I'd take that with a grain of salt.
> This is
> particularly true as the carrier solvent (not in bar oil) content of
> some lubes is quite high.
Oil will do a fine job wetting out on its own. It doesn't need carrier solvent,
unless it's not primarily oil but wax.
Matt O.
Carl Fogel
[snip]
>
> Date Miles Elongation Elongation Notes
> of washed of unwashed
> chain chain
> 07/11/03 0
> 07/14/03 137.1 0 0 Dusty and
> noisy
> 07/23/03 328.6 1/64 1/64 Dusty and
> slightly noisy
> 08/01/03 607.24 1/64 1/64
> 08/11/03 819.71 1/64 1/64
> 09/02/03 1076.67 1/64 1/32
> rain
> 09/19/03 1430.39 1/64 1/32
> noisy
> 10/23/03 1801.17 3/64 1/32
>
> 11/07/03 2257.55 3/64 1/32
>
> 01/05/04 2739.52 1/16 1/32
> Very dirty and noisy
>
[snip]
Dear Tom,
I suspect that rather more frequent cleaning is needed
to make any noticeable difference. Your table suggests
that one chain was cleaned roughly every 250-300 miles,
once a month. Fresh oil on a clean chain becomes black
with road grit within fifteen miles, as I discover almost
every day.
As for the actual measurements, they seem to show twice
as much elongation for the cleaned chain after 2700 miles,
2/32" for the cleaned chain section versus only 1/32" for
the uncleaned section.
Possibly the cleaning allowed far more grit to enter the
deeper parts of the cleaned section and it wore twice as
fast.
But another explanation is that the measurements were
inherently inaccurate--a used chain will always be
longer after cleaning because the solvent removes most
of the minute layer of gritty lubricant between the pins
and rollers. (This is why cleaning an extremely worn and
filthy chain can be disastrous--the nicely cleaned chain
may start to skip because it has abruptly elongated,
while the worn gear teeth that matched it are still the
same.)
In a stretched 12-link section, there are 24 points of
contact between pins and rollers. To account for the
extra 1/32" difference requires removing an interior
layer of oily grime amounting to only about a thousandth
of an inch. That is, 1/32" is about 0.0313 inches. A
twenty-fourth of this tiny width is only 0.0013 inches.
You can check the difference by using a pair of 6-inch
dial calipers to measure not from pin center to pin
center (inaccurate at this level) but from link end
to link end (they don't wear and the caliper ends snug
up nicely and repeatably with the thumb-roller clutch).
I think that you'll find that the calipers show that
the same section of worn, dirty chain lengthens when
cleaned because the pins are freer to rattle with the
layer of oily grime removed.
Carl Fogel
Harris
> It all certainly supports my habit of just adding lube and then
> buying a chain when I need one -- why spend so many hours over the
> life of the chain when a new one is $25?
$25??!! Nashbar has the HG-53 9-sp chain on sale for $9.95
Art Harris
Harris
> >Also, just out
> >of curiosity, did you leave the original packing grease on when the
> >chain was installed?
>
> If the SRAM lube (which has been identified, and can be purchased in
> cases of 12 400ml cans for a bit over $20 per can) was present on both
> chain segments when the test started, and was effectively removed at
> first cleaning from the "washed" chain but *not* from the "unwashed",
> then I would say that the conditions did not, in fact, represent a
> single-variant test. It is still interesting, though. It would be
> even more interesting to re-do the test with a pair of chain pieces
> which had both been washed (and dried) *before* being put on, and
> which were lubed *solely* with the same lube from that point onward.
> If the "washed" chain were also permitted to completely dry so that no
> solvent remained before the lube was reapplied, this would reduce the
> variables to one; the cleaning method. I'm not sure which way I would
> predict the outcome of a re-test as described. At this point,
> however, I believe that there is reason to avoid stripping the SRAM
> factory lube from a chain, based on the test performed.
Some good points there. Yes, the chain needs to be completely dried after
cleaning. I usuallly whip it around (outdoors) and thenm either let it
hang in a dry place or use a hair dryer.
As for re-lubing, perhaps the chain needs to be immersed in oil to ensure
adequate penetration.
Since I don't do much rain riding, I've been tending to not remove the
chain unless it's really grimey. My thinking has been that if cleaning the
chain in solvent only extends its life a little, it's not worth it. If it
actually shortens chain life, it's really not worth it!
So Tom, did you leave the packing grease on both halves of the chain at
the start?
Art Harris
Rick Onanian
Somebody else in this thread had said $25, and I think that's what
an Ultegra 9 speed chain costs at my LBS, if I'm in some sort of a
hurry and don't want to wait for Nashbar to ship it.
At $10, it's so disposable that there's REALLY no reason whatsoever
to clean a chain, unless you put on a really huge amount of miles.
There's barely a reason to lube it -- mostly so it doesn't squeak.
Zog The Undeniable
> To interject some real data into the chain lubrication debate I devised the
> following method for comparing two methods.
Did you get all the solvent out afterwards? I wash in strong detergent,
rinse and dry the chain in the oven or on a hot pipe before re-oiling it
- otherwise the solvent will mix with, and dilute, the oil. I get at
least 3-4,000 miles out of a touring bike chain in mucky British
conditions, which seems pretty good to me. I clean it when it starts
looking really bad - every 4-500 miles.
M-Gineering import & framebouw
>
> On 6 Jan 2004 06:02:40 -0800, n2...@hotmail.com (Art Harris) wrote:
> >TBGibb wrote:
> >> Date Miles Elongation Elongation
> >> of washed of unwashed
> >> 01/05/04 2739.52 1/16" 1/32"
> >
> >
> >This data indicates that NOT washing the chain in solvent doubles
> >chain life. How do you explain that? Chain "stretch" is caused by wear
> >on the pins. Washing in solvent should remove internal grit better
> >than scrubbing with a toothbrush, and therefore result in longer life.
>
> I imagine that washing in solvent also removes internal lubrication
> better, and probably leaves some solvent in it's place. Then, when
> you lube it, the lube either never displaces the solvent, or is
> diluted by the solvent.
washing doesn't remove the grit from inside the chain, it just makes it
mobile again. Then you have to ride quite a while with a grinding chain
before the dirt particles again wear off from the bearing surfaces
--
Marten
Werehatrack
may have said:
>At $10, it's so disposable that there's REALLY no reason whatsoever
>to clean a chain, unless you put on a really huge amount of miles.
>There's barely a reason to lube it -- mostly so it doesn't squeak.
Oiling it also lubes the cassette and chainring teeth, hopefully
helping to prolong their life.
dvt
> To interject some real data into the chain lubrication debate I devised the
> following method for comparing two methods.
> Results:
>
> Date Miles Elongation Elongation
> of washed of unwashed
> chain chain
> 07/11/03 0
> 07/14/03 137.1 0 0
> 07/23/03 328.6 1/64 1/64
> 08/01/03 607.24 1/64 1/64
> 08/11/03 819.71 1/64 1/64
> 09/02/03 1076.67 1/64 1/32
> 09/19/03 1430.39 1/64 1/32
> 10/23/03 1801.17 3/64 1/32
> 11/07/03 2257.55 3/64 1/32
> 01/05/04 2739.52 1/16 1/32
I find it very interesting that the rate of wear of each section of
chain is much different. In one month, the washed chain stretched 1/32".
No other data points show that much "chainge" in such a short period.
If I chart the data, I the washed chain showed elongation that was
approximately linear with elapsed time and mileage. The unwashed chain
would have a much poorer linear fit, since it stretched during the first
1100 miles and then stopped stretching for the last 1600 miles. For the
stat-minded, my spreadsheet shows RSQ=0.87 for washed and RSQ=0.66 for
unwashed data.
Two theories that have been proposed elsewhere in this thread might
explain the differences. First, if the chain were accidentally switched
in midstream (i.e. at the 10/23/03 measuring), the trends would make
much more sense. Second, if the unwashed chain has grit filling in the
gap, the gap might stabilize because a growing gap will continue to get
filled with more grit. I'm a little skeptical of this second theory.
I don't think the theory about the packing grease makes much sense in
light of the unusual trends in the data.
Other explanations might exist, but I can't think of any at the moment.
Well done, Tom.
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu
TBGibb
<_@_._> writes:
>You might be able to get better results if you measure before putting
>the oil on.
I did.
>
>
>How about just shaking in solvent just once, instead of 5-6 as you did?
>It will be interesting to see if washing in solvent just the once is as
>effective as washing many times.
Good subject for another trial.
Tom Gibb <TBG...@aol.com>
TBGibb
<scott.a...@zsympaticoz.ca> writes:
>"TBGibb" <tbg...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20040106001330...@mb-m28.aol.com...
>> To interject some real data into the chain lubrication debate I devised
>the
>> following method for comparing two methods.
>
><<snip NASA test procedure..>>
>
Yes, please excuse me, I have an vehicle maintaince appointment on Mars.
Tom Gibb <TBG...@aol.com>
Rick Onanian
wrote:
>Did you get all the solvent out afterwards? I wash in strong detergent,
>rinse and dry the chain in the oven or on a hot pipe before re-oiling it
>- otherwise the solvent will mix with, and dilute, the oil. I get at
You do all that work for a $10 chain? That's like working for
$2/hour.
--
Rick Onanian
Paul Hays
(in message <rtjmvv8lbqnu8c5in...@4ax.com>):
Only if you stand there and watch it dry.
It only takes me around 10 minutes of actual work to clean and dry a chain:
remove, shake in plastic soda bottle with citris solvent, shake with water,
hang to dry, re-install and lube.
David Kerber
says...
I just scrape that off with a screwdriver while spinning the cranks
backwards by hand.
--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!
REAL programmers write self-modifying code.
TBGibb
carl...@comcast.net (Carl Fogel) writes:
>But another explanation is that the measurements were
>inherently inaccurate--a used chain will always be
>longer after cleaning because the solvent removes most
>of the minute layer of gritty lubricant between the pins
>and rollers.
Every measurment was made after cleaning.
Tom Gibb <TBG...@aol.com>
TBGibb
<I_hat...@invalid.org> writes:
She does even after 32 years of marriage, four kids and inummerable soccer
(European football) games.
Tom Gibb <TBG...@aol.com>
TBGibb
<aha...@bookworm.suffolk.lib.ny.us> writes:
>So Tom, did you leave the packing grease on both halves of the chain at
>the start?
Yes.
Tom Gibb <TBG...@aol.com>
TBGibb
>First, if the chain were accidentally switched
>in midstream (i.e. at the 10/23/03 measuring),
Did not happen.
Tom Gibb <TBG...@aol.com>
TBGibb
<rau...@earthWEEDSlink.net> writes:
>Fourth, if the solvent was not drying out
>completely before the oil was applied, the solvent may have reduced
>the lube's effectiveness.
This could be a factor. The chain had at lest an hour to dry, but the paint
thinner I was using doesn't evaporate very quickly. Still, it seemed dry to
me.
Tom Gibb <TBG...@aol.com>
TBGibb
(Art Harris) writes:
>This data indicates that NOT washing the chain in solvent doubles
>chain life. How do you explain that? Chain "stretch" is caused by wear
>on the pins. Washing in solvent should remove internal grit better
>than scrubbing with a toothbrush, and therefore result in longer life.
That's what I thought and was acting on for years.
>
>Are you sure you didn't mislabel the two chain halves? Also, just out
>of curiosity, did you leave the original packing grease on when the
>chain was installed?
As it happens the "washed" half was a link longer than the "unwashed" one, so
no I did not mislabel them.
I left the original grease in place. As far as I know there was still some in
the "unwashed" half, which might be why it did better.
Tom Gibb <TBG...@aol.com>
TBGibb
Scharf" <scharf...@linkearth.net> writes:
>If you want to get the chain really, really clean, then put it repeatedly
>through a chain cleaner with fresh non-water based solvent, until the
>solvent is clean; simply soaking it in solvent does little, you want the
>links in motion as they pass through the solvent. Then soak it in chain saw
>oil or spray with motorcycle chain lube.
"4. Clean one section (called "washed") by thrashing it in paint thinner,
changing the thinner until there is a clean wash. "
Tom Gibb <TBG...@aol.com>
Benjamin Weiner
> TBGibb wrote:
> > Date Miles Elongation Elongation
> > of washed of unwashed
> > chain chain
> > 07/11/03 0
> > 07/14/03 137.1 0 0
> > 07/23/03 328.6 1/64 1/64
> > 08/01/03 607.24 1/64 1/64
> > 08/11/03 819.71 1/64 1/64
> > 09/02/03 1076.67 1/64 1/32
> > 09/19/03 1430.39 1/64 1/32
> > 10/23/03 1801.17 3/64 1/32
> > 11/07/03 2257.55 3/64 1/32
> > 01/05/04 2739.52 1/16 1/32
> I find it very interesting that the rate of wear of each section of
> chain is much different. In one month, the washed chain stretched 1/32".
> No other data points show that much "chainge" in such a short period.
> If I chart the data, I the washed chain showed elongation that was
> approximately linear with elapsed time and mileage. The unwashed chain
> would have a much poorer linear fit, since it stretched during the first
> 1100 miles and then stopped stretching for the last 1600 miles. For the
> stat-minded, my spreadsheet shows RSQ=0.87 for washed and RSQ=0.66 for
> unwashed data.
The measurements could only be made to the nearest 1/64 inch,
and presumably have some error. That explains why the measurements
appear to jump. Presumably the unwashed chain is still stretching
during all the time it is sitting at 1/32" measured stretch, but
the measurement can't resolve it.
When you're measuring in very small numbers of what your instruments
can resolve, effects like this happen all the time. It's well
known that differentiating data to get a rate of change amplifies
noise. That's why I wouldn't worry about the month where the
washed chain appeared to stretch 1/32".
The reasonable way to make the measurement about 2x more accurate is
to measure the stretch in the entire half-chain, not just a foot
of it, but (from experience) doing this to 1/32" or 1/64" will be
a minor nuisance. One needs, at least, a bigger ruler. Anyway,
I know there's nothing more annoying than people who come along
afterward and tell the experimenter how he or she _should_ have
done things. Thanks for making the experiment, Tom.
David Reuteler
: and inummerable soccer (European football) games.
i'm confused -- with her? is this a euphemism for something? like playing
frisbee golf?
--
david reuteler
reut...@visi.com
Werehatrack
At the very least, you've provided some valuable direct comparison
even if it ended up being potentially multivariate in one or more
respects. Good job; it's actually quite common for such a first test
to end up both having unexpected variances and unexpected results.
Meanwhile, I am relieved to note that the two chains that I most
recently installed have not been solvent-cleaned...and now, I intend
to ensure that they stay that way. Your test's results may not be
100% conclusive, but they added to the information available in a
valuable manner.
Paul Kopit
>Are you sure you didn't mislabel the two chain halves? Also, just out
>of curiosity, did you leave the original packing grease on when the
>chain was installed?
Sometimes new data is hard to accept and I am suspect. It's difficult
to believe that dirty oil works better than clean oil.
If the solvent in the cleaned chain is not adequately removed, than
re-oiling will not be as effective.
TBGibb
<reut...@visi.com> writes:
>i'm confused -- with her? is this a euphemism for something? like playing
>frisbee golf?
The kids played the game, competitively. Have you ever heard the title "soccer
Mom"?
Tom Gibb <TBG...@aol.com>
Werehatrack
It's an Americanism. He may indeed be unfamiliar with it. It refers
to a woman who gets the duty of hauling her kid (and sometimes
multiple others and some of the gear) to afternoon soccer practice.
Since it's in the US, the field is never within walking distance, even
if there is one that *would* be within walking distance. Because the
games are fairly long, the mothers tend to collect at a safe distance
and do anything except watch the game.
Carl Fogel
Dear Tom,
Perhaps we're misunderstanding each other?
I thought that you washed one chain section
washed in solvent once a month and then measured
it--a worn but freshly cleaned chain with far
less crud in its internal parts to tighten it
up, so to speak.
The other section, I thought, was never washed
in any significant way, just wiped off with a
rag and brush and then oiled, which would have
no effect on the gritty slime inside the rollers.
So one chain section was relatively clean inside
when measured and would never have more than a month
of internal build-up.
Meanwhile the other chain section was never cleaned
internally and eventually accumulated ten months of
gummy, oily paste.
Did I misunderstand your method?
I'm negotiating with a local bike shop for a few
truly filthy worn-out chains to measure before and
after cleaning to see if my theory that cleaning
results in elongation.
Carl Fogel
Steven M. Scharf
> I can think of some possible factors that may be involved. First, as
> you touch on farther down, the washing may have removed the original
> packing lube and eliminated the benefit provided by its presence.
> Second, if the solvent stripped the lube completely, and the
> reapplication was not getting into all of the pivots properly, then
> the "washed" chain may have been operating partially dry. Third, some
> dirt's presence between the side plates may have been acting to reduce
> the amount of fresh grit getting to the pivots; dirt protecing against
> dirt intrusion, as it were. Fourth, if the solvent was not drying out
> completely before the oil was applied, the solvent may have reduced
> the lube's effectiveness. There are probably other things that I
> haven't thought of as well.
Very good points.
Many people make the mistake of using water based solvents, when they should
be using kerosene or other petroleum based solvent that evaporates more
quickly. So, as you state, there is still solvent inside the pivots when the
lubricant is applied, plus they probably did not remove the original
lubricant (which is a good thing, but now you have water mixed with
lubricant).
Many people make the mistake of re-applying lubricant by dripping or
spraying, which does not get lubricant deep into all the pivots.
If soaking the chain clean, it is best to use kerosene, it's cheap and
effective. The chain needs to be agitated in the solvent.
Following the soaking, you need to soak and agitate the chain in an
appropriate lubricant (chain saw oil is best, but SAE 30 oil (not 10W30) is
also okay). Almost as good, is a foaming spray lubricant for chains, as sold
in motorcycle parts stores. A big can of this will last you ten years!
I used to go through the whole rigamarole of removing the chain, soaking it
in solvent, soaking it in oil. As the number of bicycles increased through
marriage and children, this sort of thing became way too time consuming, for
too little benefit.
As SRAM stated, wiping the chain clean and then using a proper lubricant is
just fine. Properly cleaning and re-lubing a chain is something that few
people do, though many think they do it! A lot of people still change their
vehicle's oil every 3K miles too, even though there is no benefit to doing
this on all but a very, very few vehicles.
Art Harris
> if the unwashed chain has grit filling in the
> gap, the gap might stabilize because a growing gap will continue to get
> filled with more grit.
If Tom still has the chain, perhaps he could now thoroughly clean the
"unwashed" side and see if the elongation increases. That would test
the theory that internal grit caused the wear to appear to be less
than it actually was.
Tom, thanks for taking the data and getting us all thinking!
Art Harris
Tom Paterson
>Because the
>games are fairly long, the mothers tend to collect at a safe distance
>and do anything except watch the game.
You forgot about the incessant babbling on the headpiece cell phone, while
cutting off other drivers, going 53 mph in the 70+ zone, sitting for a count of
five at a new green light. The "handhelds" are of course a lot worse. Ah well,
using more gas is patriotic, right? --Tom Paterson
Werehatrack
may have said:
Oddly enough, the only three soccer moms of my personal social
acquaintance drove compct cars and didn't have cell phones. They also
didn't sit with the gaggle of moms who arrived in Navigators,
Escalades and such. (My daughter had a brief fling with the soccer
scene, but decided that it took too much time for too little gain.
Biking is more fun, and can be done on *her* schedule.)
dvt
> The measurements could only be made to the nearest 1/64 inch,
> and presumably have some error. That explains why the measurements
> washed chain appeared to stretch 1/32".
I hear you -- digitizing continuous data with random error can create
odd jumps in the data. Maybe that also explains the poor linear fit to
the unwashed chain data. But when two odd trends appear in the same set
of data, I begin to wonder. We might never know the answer unless we run
many repetitions of a similar test.
Inspired by Tom, I'm thinking about doing something similar when I get a
new chain for my commuter. I generally use two different chains (I swap
at cleaning time), so the results would come much slower. And I don't
have an odometer.
Matt O'Toole
> Many people make the mistake of using water based solvents, when they
> should be using kerosene or other petroleum based solvent that
> evaporates more quickly. So, as you state, there is still solvent
> inside the pivots when the lubricant is applied, plus they probably
> did not remove the original lubricant (which is a good thing, but now
> you have water mixed with lubricant).
This is true. However, if enough rinse water is used, there should be no
problem with residual solvent.
> Many people make the mistake of re-applying lubricant by dripping or
> spraying, which does not get lubricant deep into all the pivots.
Oh, yes it does, unless you're using wax.
> If soaking the chain clean, it is best to use kerosene, it's cheap and
> effective. The chain needs to be agitated in the solvent.
>
> Following the soaking, you need to soak and agitate the chain in an
> appropriate lubricant (chain saw oil is best, but SAE 30 oil (not
> 10W30) is also okay). Almost as good, is a foaming spray lubricant
> for chains, as sold in motorcycle parts stores.
You don't need to soak the chain in oil. The oil will find its way in just
fine, unless the chain is wet. But even in that case, the oil will continue to
coat the metal after the water has dried.
Look at how a few drops of *fresh* oil will creep all the way across a clean
garage floor.
> A big can of this
> will last you ten years!
A medium sized can of any of these is probably good for a decade.
> I used to go through the whole rigamarole of removing the chain,
> soaking it in solvent, soaking it in oil. As the number of bicycles
> increased through marriage and children, this sort of thing became
> way too time consuming, for too little benefit.
I clean my chain while washing my bike. It adds only a couple of minutes to the
process, if that.
> As SRAM stated, wiping the chain clean and then using a proper
> lubricant is just fine. Properly cleaning and re-lubing a chain is
> something that few people do, though many think they do it! A lot of
> people still change their vehicle's oil every 3K miles too, even
> though there is no benefit to doing this on all but a very, very few
> vehicles.
SRAM is in the business of selling chains! They want to sell you more of them,
not help you make them last longer.
Matt O.
dvt
claims. See below for examples. All of your claims may be 100% correct,
but you haven't convinced me just yet.
Steven M. Scharf claimed:
> Many people make the mistake of using water based solvents, when they should
> be using kerosene or other petroleum based solvent that evaporates more
> quickly.
support:
> So, as you state, there is still solvent inside the pivots when the
> lubricant is applied, plus they probably did not remove the original
> lubricant (which is a good thing, but now you have water mixed with
> lubricant).
A little weak on the support for that claim. How do you know that
solvent is still in the pivots? In my case, for example, a
solvent-washed chain hangs for at least a week (usually more) before it
gets oiled and used. I'd wager that the solvent has pretty much
evaporated in that time.
Claim:
> Many people make the mistake of re-applying lubricant by dripping or
> spraying, which does not get lubricant deep into all the pivots.
Support:
<none>
Claims:
> If soaking the chain clean, it is best to use kerosene, it's cheap and
> effective. The chain needs to be agitated in the solvent.
Support;
<none>
Claim:
> Following the soaking, you need to soak and agitate the chain in an
> appropriate lubricant (chain saw oil is best, but SAE 30 oil (not 10W30) is
> also okay).
Support:
<none>
Claim:
> As SRAM stated, wiping the chain clean and then using a proper lubricant is
> just fine.
Support:
<none>
Claim:
> Properly cleaning and re-lubing a chain is something that few
> people do, though many think they do it!
Support:
<none>
Claim:
> A lot of people still change their
> vehicle's oil every 3K miles too, even though there is no benefit to doing
> this on all but a very, very few vehicles.
Support:
<none>
I write this not to be argumentative or negative, although it could
easily be interpreted that way. I write this to point out the style of
writing that has gotten you in some trouble in other threads on this NG.
A group ending in .tech will probably have a some scientifically trained
people reading the posts, and claims without support will get you in
trouble with that crowd nearly every time.
Some exceptions are made for those that have established credibility
within a community. In my opinion, Steven, you haven't been around long
enough to have that credibility. Your claims may all be correct, but you
have to back them up with some data before I will buy it.
Rick Onanian
wrote:
>On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 16:16:53 -0800, Rick Onanian wrote
>> $2/hour.
>
>
>It only takes me around 10 minutes of actual work to clean and dry a chain:
>remove, shake in plastic soda bottle with citris solvent, shake with water,
>hang to dry, re-install and lube.
Yeah, but 10 minutes x how many iterations?
--
Rick Onanian
TBGibb
>If Tom still has the chain, perhaps he could now thoroughly clean the
>"unwashed" side and see if the elongation increases. That would test
>the theory that internal grit caused the wear to appear to be less
>than it actually was.
I still do, and I'd be glad to.
>Tom, thanks for taking the data and getting us all thinking!
My pleasure.
Tom Gibb <TBG...@aol.com>
TBGibb
<rau...@earthWEEDSlink.net> writes:
>It's an Americanism. He may indeed be unfamiliar with it. It refers
>to a woman who gets the duty of hauling her kid (and sometimes
>multiple others and some of the gear) to afternoon soccer practice.
>Since it's in the US, the field is never within walking distance, even
>if there is one that *would* be within walking distance. Because the
>games are fairly long, the mothers tend to collect at a safe distance
>and do anything except watch the game.
That doesn't accurately describe this household's soccer mom. She even coached
a season when the kids were smaller (so did I). With four going on at once we
often had someone bike to their practice afterwhich we could usually pick them
up.
She *always* watched the game, criticized the refs under her breath and cheered
them on.
Tom Gibb <TBG...@aol.com>
TBGibb
>Perhaps we're misunderstanding each other?
>
>I thought that you washed one chain section
>washed in solvent once a month and then measured
>it--a worn but freshly cleaned chain with far
>less crud in its internal parts to tighten it
>up, so to speak.
The chain sections were measured after cleaning, by solvent bath or toothbrush.
As a side observation the washed chain seemed looser (laterally) in my hands
after it's cleaning, but I didn't try to quantify that.
>The other section, I thought, was never washed
>in any significant way, just wiped off with a
>rag and brush and then oiled, which would have
>no effect on the gritty slime inside the rollers.
Correct. I measured it after that "cleaning" but before I oiled it.
>So one chain section was relatively clean inside
>when measured and would never have more than a month
>of internal build-up.
Right.
>Meanwhile the other chain section was never cleaned
>internally and eventually accumulated ten months of
>gummy, oily paste.
I'd call it six months worth, but yes.
>Did I misunderstand your method?
I think not.
>
>I'm negotiating with a local bike shop for a few
>truly filthy worn-out chains to measure before and
>after cleaning to see if my theory that cleaning
>results in elongation.
>
Tom Gibb <TBG...@aol.com>
Carl Fogel
Dear Tom,
My first two local bike shops apologized for
having no suitably worn and filthy chains. The
third shop cheerfully provided a modestly dirty
chain from its trash bin.
I took the simple approach, stretched it out on
an 8-foot aluminum extrusion normally used for
cutting off 4x8 plywood, marked the end, and
then gleefully cleaned the bejesus out of it
with solvent.
I stretched it out again and found no apparent
elongation 48 links, which seemed to undermine
my theory rather impressively--until I noticed
that the "worn" chain's pin seemed to hit exactly
on the 48-inch end of one aluminum section.
Re-measuring showed that the damned chain exhibits
no wear over 48 links. Apparently, the bike shop
was throwing away a chain with a few miles and a
little dirt on it.
I was so surprised that I stretched my last badly
worn and cleaned chain out next to it--sure enough,
my worn chain ended up almost a full link longer
within 48 links.
So I'm still waiting for a truly worn and dirty
chain to find out if cleaning leads to instant
elongation.
Carl Fogel
dvt
> dvt wrote:
>>if the unwashed chain has grit filling in the
>>gap, the gap might stabilize because a growing gap will continue to get
>>filled with more grit.
>
> If Tom still has the chain, perhaps he could now thoroughly clean the
> "unwashed" side and see if the elongation increases. That would test
> the theory that internal grit caused the wear to appear to be less
> than it actually was.
I was thinking about this during my ride home last night. The bottom
line, as I see it, is *not* how worn the chain is. The bottom line is
how worn does the chain seem to the rest of the drivetrain, right? No
matter how that length is made up, a chain with very little elongation
would not cause undue wear on the sprockets.
So if the dirty chain is really worn but it measures only 1/32
elongation, the rest of the drivetrain sees a chain that is only
slightly worn. The sprockets are preserved.
On the other hand, maybe that dirt and grit would be displaced under the
hundreds of pounds of load exerted on a chain during normal use. Then
the rest of the drivetrain would see a greatly elongated chain.
Tom has provided fodder for a lot of academic-style debate, which is a
great thing IMO. On the other hand, I plan to continue my chain cleaning
technique to keep the rest of the bike clean. As others have pointed
out, the chain is a pretty cheap and expendable piece of equipment.
Carl Fogel
[snip]
> If Tom still has the chain, perhaps he could now thoroughly clean the
> "unwashed" side and see if the elongation increases. That would test
> the theory that internal grit caused the wear to appear to be less
> than it actually was.
>
> Tom, thanks for taking the data and getting us all thinking!
>
> Art Harris
Dear Art,
Curse you for a sensible, practical fellow!
Wish I'd thought of this before pestering my
local bike shops for a worn, filthy chain,
an item in curiously short supply.
What I foolishly tested without checking turned
out to be an apparently unworn chain with a faint
coating of grime, 48 inches pin-to-pin, both dirty
and clean.
Enviously,
Carl Fogel
TBGibb
carl...@comcast.net (Carl Fogel) writes:
>Re-measuring showed that the damned chain exhibits
>no wear over 48 links. Apparently, the bike shop
>was throwing away a chain with a few miles and a
>little dirt on it.
>
So now you have a usable chain. The joke is on who?
I wonder if they insisted on replacing the cassette at the same time . . .?
Tom Gibb <TBG...@aol.com>
el Inglés
Conclusions: It isn't worth it to soak a chain out in solvent. I've
stopped doing so, but I will be very careful to measure often. The
presence of my wife Susan (an unbiased observer) in this was essential,
I (she) caught myself (me) seeing more wear in the "unwashed" chain than
in the "washed" one early in the trial.
Sounds like you washed all the grease out of the chain and then didn´t
wait for long enough before applying oil. If the cleaner isn´t given
time to evaporate then there is no way the oil / grease can get into the
interior of the chains moving pieces . On motorbikes we used to clean
the chain in parafin ( kerosen ? ) , safer than petrol but not as
effective , then left it over night to dry , then put it into a can of
hot grease and left for 24 hours . Seemed to work fine .
--
Richard
> Originally posted by Tbgibb
>
> Conclusions: It isn't worth it to soak a chain out in solvent. I've
> stopped doing so, but I will be very careful to measure often. The
> presence of my wife Susan (an unbiased observer) in this was essential,
> I (she) caught myself (me) seeing more wear in the "unwashed" chain than
> in the "washed" one early in the trial.
I'm sort of coming into the middle of all this but replacing three
chains on my recumbent is pricy.
I make measurements at work. Measuring small differences reliably is
harder than most folks think. Here's a suggestion based on 30 years
years as a chemist.
Experiment #1. Get a new chain. Ride on it till your first cleaning
interval. Break it in half; clean one half with solvent, the other
half with whatever. Rejoin the halves and lube the chain as a whole.
Ride till your next cleaning interval and repeat. Continue for a
year. Now, wipe off the external dirt. All we are interested in at
this point is the chain that the bicycle actually sees. Separate the
two parts and measure the wear of each half *at least* five times,
checking a different part of the chain for each measurement. Average
the measurements and report the chain wear for the solvent cleaned and
otherwise cleaned sections.
Experiment #2. Clean a chain with kerosene. Air dry as usual.
Spread on a baking pan and put in an oven set on "warm". After 30
minutes or so open the oven door and sniff the kerosene fumes. "nuff
said?" When the oven door pops open, releasing a small ball of flame
and a boom your chain is dry and ready to lubricate.
Let us know how your experiments turn out.
Richard
Carl Fogel
Dear Richard,
Assuming equal-length chain-halves, no measuring will
be needed. Just stretch the two pieces of chain out
side by side and see which is longer.
Carl Fogel
Peter
> el Inglés <ba...@ucbclub.org> wrote in message news:<Q_ILb.76215$455....@fe16.usenetserver.com>...
>
>>Originally posted by Tbgibb
>>
>>Conclusions: It isn't worth it to soak a chain out in solvent. I've
>>stopped doing so, but I will be very careful to measure often. The
>>presence of my wife Susan (an unbiased observer) in this was essential,
>>I (she) caught myself (me) seeing more wear in the "unwashed" chain than
>>in the "washed" one early in the trial.
>
>
> I'm sort of coming into the middle of all this but replacing three
> chains on my recumbent is pricy.
>
> I make measurements at work. Measuring small differences reliably is
> harder than most folks think.
I agree, but I think you're missing the main point here. There are two
suggested maintenance methods, one of which takes about 30 seconds per
month and the other takes up to 30 minutes per month. If the difference in
the results of these methods is so small that extremely careful
measurements need to be made to see them then I don't really care which one
is just a little bit better (except as an academic exercise) - I'll choose
the first method and save myself that extra effort.
Now if someone can come up with a reasonably simple cleaning method and do
their own experiment which shows that it lets you run a chain for say 15000
miles before there's "stretch" of 1/16" vs. only getting 4000 miles without
the cleaning then I'd be willing to start doing my own experiments to
verify this and see if it's worthwhile. But at this point it seems to me
the burden of proof is on those claiming that cleaning is useful for other
than aesthetic reasons.