Cleaning the chain.....
MrPotatoHead
I've decided to spray it with engine degreaser and then hose
it off before relubing with a spray teflon lube.
Comments?
TBGibb
(MrPotatoHead) writes:
>I've decided to spray it with engine degreaser and then hose
>it off before relubing with a spray teflon lube.
I know a rider that swears by that method. To me it sounds messy and of
questionable effectiveness.
Tom Gibb <TBG...@aol.com>
Garry Lee
when my chain was filthy after some necessary muddy off-road.
Go to petrol station, gas station to Americans.
Get a discarded oil bottle from their rubbish bin, thrash can to Americans.
Get a pint of diesel in this.
Go down road.
Pour over chain while rotating.
The diesel leaves your chain sparkling and when it evaportes it leaves the
oil which was in the bottle.
K&C Russell
"MrPotatoHead" <4...@piddful.net.com> wrote in message
news:3d685af4...@news.prodigy.net...
>
> I've decided to spray it with engine degreaser and then hose
> it off before relubing with a spray teflon lube.
>
> Comments?
It gives a nice clean chain for lubrication. Today I did something similar,
but I wiped the chain down first with a rag to get most of the grime off.
I then worked the degreaser in with fingers, hosed off, dried and then lubed
the chain. It was not too messy.
Kevin
Jon Isaacs
>but I wiped the chain down first with a rag to get most of the grime off.
>I then worked the degreaser in with fingers, hosed off, dried and then lubed
>the chain. It was not too messy.
The outside may well be clean and look pretty but the inside is where the grit
and grime causes the wear. I am leary of any system that has the potential to
push the fine grit to the internal workings of the chain.
Jon Isaacs
David Kunz
I'd be afraid of what the degreaser might do to my paint, cable
housings, etc.. I know that the stuff that I use on my car warns about
both of these.
Personally, I use a sachs chain with a quick link. I just remove it and
put the chain in an old milk carton filled with my favorite solvent
(I've been using terpentine lately because I have a bunch "laying
around", but plan on getting some kerosene when I get a chance).
Agitate it, let it sit, agitate it some more (repeat depending on how
dirty it was). Pull it out; hose it off; let it dry; put it on and lube
it! I usually pull the chain and put it in the solvent after a ride,
and pull it out to put back on the next day.
--
David
Bruce Ball
-----------------------
Tom refers to me, of course.
I use engine degreaser followed by soap and rinse spray (hose spray
bottles from Windex are very good for this purpose). At the same time
I find it opportune to degrease the rings, cluster, bb underside, R
chainstay and other spots which might have some surface oil/grime.
While you're at it, it's a good time to soap, rinse, wax the bike
while the chain dries. Very easy, and one can have a spiffy bike with
a minimal amount of effort within a half-hour.
Following a tip from a poster here, I lube the chain (motor oil) by
putting a drop on each roller. This is very adequate and eliminates
the wipeoff of excess lube, also reduces tatooing from the sideplates.
After 100 mi of town/trail riding the rollers have the appearance of
dull, dry steel, and I put another drop on the rollers to be good for
another 100. Thus, I clean the drivetrain about every 200 mi.
This year, on two bikes, I put on new PC-48 chains. Each shows 1/32"
stretch @ 1600, 1800 mi respectively; and it appears that each will
last at least to 2500-3000 mi before 1/16" stretch. Previously, this
easy lube/cleaning method resulted in 8000 mi life on a recumbent
chain (2-1/2 chain lengths) before 1/16" stretch.
To me, Tom's method of chain removal, bucket sloshing might marginally
clean the chain more thoroughly, but the extra time/effort is beyond
diminishing return in terms of chain life IMO.
As an added note -- you don't have to go overboard with the degreaser
spray; one can should last for 4-5 cleanings. As another poster
mentions, kerosene/#1 diesel will work very well, but I like the
convenience of the spray can. Finally. I recommend putting a drop of
oil on the pivot points before the soap/rinse spray cleaning, and no
need to overdo the spraying around the hubs, bb, headset.
Bruce Ball
5750 Tom -- get cranking!
AndresMuro
enviromnet, unless you use an enviromnetally friendly cleaner.
It works better if you take the chain off and dip it in the degreaser. Leave it
there for a half hour and shake well. The green or the orange stuff work great
if you want to be nature friendly, or gas, kerosene, diesel fuel, etc if you
don't care about nature.
Take the chain out rinse it and let it dry. Finally apply fresh lube. This is
the method recommended by Sheldon Brown in a late issue of Byciling magazine.
Andres
Pete Geurds
http://www.sram.com/tech_info/faq_display.asp?faq_id=14
They seem concerned that you will remove lube from inside rollers if you soak
chain in sovent hence the warning not to soak in solvent.
hmm........
seemed like a good idea.
Pete Geurds
Douglassville, PA
Bike Dude
and to the Americans, ILLEGAL. While not as bad us dumping a
crankcase-worth of auld oyle down the storm sewer, it would probably
still cassify as dumping oil into the watershed. Besides, it is just
not environmentally responsible. I can see how you were lead to do it
"in a pinch" but it would have been better to catch the runoff and
return it to the petrol station. Do petrol stations there take used oil
for recycling?
My method is similar, and similar to what Dave Kunz does, except that I
have three bottles of mineral spirits (a lighter grade of kerosene
typically sold in paint-supply stores): the wash (dirty mineral
spirits), the rinse (clean mineral spirits), and the settling bottle.
When the rinse becomes dirty, it becomes the wash and the wash gets set
aside to settle. The settled bottle gets slowly poured into a clean
bottle to become the new rinse. My mineral spirits last practically
forever (the last litre lasted over 10 years, and I used a lot of it to
clean cassettes and whatnot too) and this is not only thrifty, it KEEPS
OIL OUT OF THE WATER TABLE.
You can add some oil to the rinse to rinse and lubricate in one step.
Motor oil is OK but marine-grade extreme pressure lube (90wt) is much
better. Normally, 90wt would not get where it needs to be in a chain
but thinned by the spirits it gets in everywhere. Hang to dry and give
it a good wipe-down before putting it back on the bike - oil on the
outside of the chain only collects dirt.
I feel badly for a lot of well-intentioned evironmentalists who buy
"green" citrus degreasers and "Simple Green" to clean their chains,
cassettes and whatnot, and then end up pouring that OIL LADEN soapy
water down the drain or worse, letting it run down the driveway. This
is NOT ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND, but my mineral spirits method (adapted and
improved upon from Sheldon Brown's degreaser in a Pepsi/Coke 1L bottle) IS.
Oh yeah, and when I do clean a cassette or some bearings, the used
spirits go into my settling bottle. I usually do it in two steps, a
clean and then a rinse.
Bike Dude
Andres, you have it backwards. If done right, the mineral spirits
method is MUCH MORE environmentally responsible. See my full response
further down in the postings.
Garry Lee
uses as much petrol as the whole of Europe! It really does.
How in the name of the Good God is a half litre poured on a bit of ground
going to get in any significant amount into the water-table.
Ever hear of biodegredation?
I know it's illegal but so's swearing, oral sex, not carrying a sword and so
on.
Michael Paine
that you can run the chain through without removing the chain from the
bike. They seem to scrub with a solvent.
Are these to be discounted as useless?
I am not into working on my bike but the more I ride the more I think I
should be, so I could use some input on chain cleaning.
Michael
Bike Dude
In my experience, those things make a huge mess, mostly because they
"pump" the cleaning solution out of the exit port.
They do have their place. I keep one around for when I end up cleaning
some fred's bike as a favor. I usually use a water-detergent in the
gadget, getting oil spread about is usually of little concern as there
is precious little of it on the dirty chain. I do the chain first, and
then clean up the rest of the bike. In this way, I don't worry about
all the crap the gizmo pumps out onto the bike. Also, these bikes
seldom have a removable link so I can do it "right".
Bike Dude
> It ill-behoves Americans to lecture Europeans on pollution when California
> uses as much petrol as the whole of Europe! It really does.
Who is the American that is lecturing the Europeans?
> How in the name of the Good God is a half litre poured on a bit of ground
> going to get in any significant amount into the water-table.
It is all cumalitive.
> Ever hear of biodegredation?
Yes. Not very fast. Low capacity.
> I know it's illegal but so's swearing, oral sex, not carrying a sword and so
> on.
>
Pity!
David Kunz
They're better than nothing, but the won't clean the between the plates
(where the gear teeth go). This leaves some gunk behind that does a
great job grinding up the gears :).
--
David
robert...@webtv.net
of my crankarm. Fair warning.
Bob
TBGibb
>It ill-behoves Americans to lecture Europeans on pollution when California
>uses as much petrol as the whole of Europe! It really does.
Ad homenin.
>How in the name of the Good God is a half litre poured on a bit of ground
>going to get in any significant amount into the water-table.
>Ever hear of biodegredation?
>I know it's illegal but so's swearing, oral sex, not carrying a sword and so
>on.
The diesel fuel you suggested would evaporate eventually, and petrol would do
so even faster. The acutal oil residue left behind would be very slight, much
less than is deposited on the center of the road by drips from oil plugs and
slightly bad seals and surely would biodegrade. But I would rather not do that
if I can help it. I would love to hear how other people do deal with cleaning
their chains on long tours. A deal with a local mechanic would be ideal if he
would run it through his solvent bath.
At home I am very comfortable with my recycled paint thinner ("turps" on
Garry's side of the pond). I keep three commuters on the road with this and
get several thousand miles out of a chain. But I cannot carry a liter or so of
paint thinner and the stuff I'd need to let it settle and then filter it while
on tour. I'd rather carry an extra chain.
Any ideas?
Tom Gibb <TBG...@aol.com>
TBGibb
Ball) writes:
snip
>I use engine degreaser followed by soap and rinse spray (hose spray
>bottles from Windex are very good for this purpose). At the same time
>I find it opportune to degrease the rings, cluster, bb underside, R
>chainstay and other spots which might have some surface oil/grime.
>While you're at it, it's a good time to soap, rinse, wax the bike
>while the chain dries. Very easy, and one can have a spiffy bike with
>a minimal amount of effort within a half-hour.
This is why Bruce's lawn is looking so good during the drought :-)
snip
>
>Bruce Ball
>5750 Tom -- get cranking!
I am, keep it up and you'll do well but I'm at 4380 and turning out 30+ per day
(and working 40 hours a week) so you aren't out of sight . . . yet.
Tom
Tom Gibb <TBG...@aol.com>
K&C Russell
"Jon Isaacs" <joni...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020825094226...@mb-ma.aol.com...
Jon,
Fair comment, but the chain is very clean, and runs smooth and quiet when
lubed. If there is muck in there then how would you propose to get it out?
I am proposing degreaser and water to remove it.
Note that I suggest that wiping the chain clean in the first instance with a
rag to remove external grit prior to using a degreaser is my preferred
method. On this basis the amount of grit is minimised.
Kevin
Bob Denton
wrote:
>
>I've decided to spray it with engine degreaser and then hose
>it off before relubing with a spray teflon lube.
>
>Comments?
I have been using Sheldons system with our soy solvent in a Gatoraid
bottle, retreived with a spoke. I wash the chain in hot water (the soy
solvent is water miscible) shake dry and then place the chain in
melted soy wax blend and stir around to make sure it penetrates the
rollers, drain, let dry on some newspaper, and wipe with a paper
towel.
I do this every 500 miles with no interim lubrication. I have 2250
miles on the chan and it is well in spec.
We are just about ready to send samples of our Soy Solvent to those
who have requesed it already. If you would like to test this as an
alrternative to keroscene, mineral spirits, etc, just drop me a line.
If you have already made a request, we will be sending out samples
shortly.
In addition, anyone who would like to test our soy wax based chain
lube, we have a few samples ready to go. It requires heating in a pot
of boiled water, but has a much lower melting point then parafin wax
and significantly better lubricity. It's also biodegradable, non toxic
and spouse friendly.
I would appreciate any feedback on either the solvent or the wax.
Cya
Bob Denton
Gulf Stream International
Delray Beach, Florida
www.sinkthestink.com
Manufacturers of Sink the Stink
Scott Munro
Mine seems to work pretty well at keeping a chain clean; my road bike
chain has lasted several thousand miles so far. It is, however, pretty
messy and inconvenient.
My current chains are from Shimano and require a special $1
replacement rivet to put them back together after breaking, which is
why I use the on-the-bike cleaner. When it come time to replace the
chains on my bikes, I'm thinking seriously of getting chains which do
not require the special rivet (perhaps Sachs chains with Powerlinks)
so I can easily remove them for cleaning.
--
Scott Munro
"But what is liberty without wisdom and without virtue? It is the
greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness,
without tuition or restraint."
--Edmund Burke, *Reflections on the Revolution in France*
Luigi de Guzman
"TBGibb" <tbg...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020826004359...@mb-bj.aol.com...
> In article <a9aa9.1366$cP3....@news.iol.ie>, "Garry Lee" <gl...@iol.ie>
writes:
>
> >It ill-behoves Americans to lecture Europeans on pollution when
California
> >uses as much petrol as the whole of Europe! It really does.
>
> Ad homenin.
'ad hominem' velisti dicere, nonne?
<verba secta>
> The diesel fuel you suggested would evaporate eventually, and petrol would
do
> so even faster. The acutal oil residue left behind would be very slight,
much
> less than is deposited on the center of the road by drips from oil plugs
and
> slightly bad seals and surely would biodegrade. But I would rather not do
that
> if I can help it. I would love to hear how other people do deal with
cleaning
> their chains on long tours. A deal with a local mechanic would be ideal
if he
> would run it through his solvent bath.
Everybody seems to be talking about the chain. I ask: what about the grit
on the teeth? I find I have to spend a good bit of time every time I want
to clean my drive train swabbing the grit from the cogs....are there any
quicker ways of going about this chore?
-Luigi
Doug Goncz
settle. It's Harbor Freight, cheap, has a lid, and the screen will lock down to
soak. I added that myself, with a big magnet in the bottom of the can that, as
a bonus, traps steel residue.
I do this indoors with a Savin copier dispersant I got surplus. The drips go on
my "garage", a 30x80 inch door I got out of the trash. I park the bike on the
"garage" when not in use.
Chain cleaners can get oil on your rims. Various rags positioned to catch the
drips help with this a lot.
Yours,
Doug Goncz, Replikon Research, Seven Corners, VA (remove pee dot mil antispam)
http://users.aol.com/DGoncz
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=DGoncz
"Function, Funding, Form, Fit, and Finish"
g.daniels
> I once used Zep brand degreaser, undluted, and it took the anodizing off
> of my crankarm. Fair warning.
> Bob
****************************
read 'DIY chain cleaning' here in tech and 'DIY chain guard $2'also.
for those who believe on bike chain cleaning gives similar results as
slosh and dry, empirical testing is worth the time. try both methods,
eliminate or consider the variables such as temperature and wind, ride
the same road... at this latitude it seems the off bike and dry method
usually gives three-four more gears with the same effort. yeah but how
do you do this when touring? more next week.
***************************
g.daniels
> of my crankarm. Fair warning.
> Bob
*******************
how much energy does it take to make the citric as opposed to make
photchemical smog or liver killing h20, see IOWA.
*******************
David Kunz
...
> Everybody seems to be talking about the chain. I ask: what about the grit
> on the teeth? I find I have to spend a good bit of time every time I want
> to clean my drive train swabbing the grit from the cogs....are there any
> quicker ways of going about this chore?
While the chain is still on, spray degreaser (or Simple Green) on the
cassette, run the chain (turn the cranks by hand) and hold a brush
against the cassette -- make sure that you use a stiff brush and that
you get inbetween the cogs. Remember the idler gears on the derailleur
-- I sometimes use a small screwdriver to gently scrape any build-up off
here. Rinse. You can pull the chain before doing the chainrings the
same way :).
--
David
Paul Kopit
degreaser?
PhilRut1
>How will you get rid of the water and caustic solution from the engine
>degreaser?<
Blowgun.........
>
Garry Lee
Bike Dude is the American. I've never heard of a non-American called Dude.
Moi je suis l'europeen.
>
>
> > How in the name of the Good God is a half litre poured on a bit of
ground
> > going to get in any significant amount into the water-table.
>
> It is all cumalitive.Not one off it isn't
>
> > Ever hear of biodegredation?
>
> Yes. Not very fast. Low capacity.
Not in Kuwait, or the Exxon Valdez it wasn't
>
> > I know it's illegal but so's swearing, oral sex, not carrying a sword
and so
> > on.
> >
> Pity!
We agree!
>
>
Gary Mishler
"g.daniels" <data...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:41b0dda1.02082...@posting.google.com...
Explain the IOWA comment, please?
Benjamin Lewis
> My method is similar, and similar to what Dave Kunz does, except that I
> have three bottles of mineral spirits (a lighter grade of kerosene
> typically sold in paint-supply stores): the wash (dirty mineral spirits),
> the rinse (clean mineral spirits), and the settling bottle. When the rinse
> becomes dirty, it becomes the wash and the wash gets set aside to settle.
> The settled bottle gets slowly poured into a clean bottle to become the new
> rinse.
What do you do with the dirty settling bottle after you decant it? Clean
it somehow, or throw it out? Or do you just keep using it and let the
sediment gradually build up?
--
Benjamin Lewis
Seeing is deceiving. It's eating that's believing.
-- James Thurber
Bike Dude
>> Who is the American that is lecturing the Europeans?
>
>
> Bike Dude is the American. I've never heard of a non-American called
> Dude. Moi je suis l'europeen.
Bike Dude is Dutch-Canadian (but just got a "Green Card"). Yes, i have
toured Holland, most mosty in the south (Tilburg region).
>
>>
>>> How in the name of the Good God is a half litre poured on a bit
>>> of
>>
> ground
>
>>> going to get in any significant amount into the water-table.
>>
>> It is all cumalitive.Not one off it isn't
>
>
>
>>> Ever hear of biodegredation?
>>
>> Yes. Not very fast. Low capacity.
>
> Not in Kuwait, or the Exxon Valdez it wasn't
>
As I heard (or saw on PBS) you can still go to Prince William Sound,
turn over a few rocks, and find oil. Really, if oil biodegraded that
readily or that fast, there would be none left, would there?
Bike Dude
> On Sunday, August 25 at 11:03 Bike Dude <bicycl...@attbi.nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>My method is similar, and similar to what Dave Kunz does, except that I
>>have three bottles of mineral spirits (a lighter grade of kerosene
>>typically sold in paint-supply stores): the wash (dirty mineral spirits),
>>the rinse (clean mineral spirits), and the settling bottle. When the rinse
>>becomes dirty, it becomes the wash and the wash gets set aside to settle.
>>The settled bottle gets slowly poured into a clean bottle to become the new
>>rinse.
>
>
> What do you do with the dirty settling bottle after you decant it? Clean
> it somehow, or throw it out? Or do you just keep using it and let the
> sediment gradually build up?
>
whole litre of sediment, but at the current rate (maintaining 12 bikes)
it may be another 20 years before I fill that bottle with sediment.
Especially when I consider that four of those bikes may grow up and
leave home. At that point I could just throw out the sediment bottle,
but where? The best place would be to add it to macadam (or chip
seal!), sort of returning it from whence it came. I mean, mixing it in
with tar would sort of imobiize (at least temporarily) some of the
lighter petroleum elements.
Maybe I will have it analysed, to find out how bikes wear and what makes
up chain tattoos. We know they all have an oil base, but how much is
dust and how much is aluminum from the rings and how much is steel from
the chain?
When my bottle is full, I will come back here and post to see if anyone
has access to a mass spectrometer and the inclination to do a little
bicycle research.
TBGibb
<luigi...@cox.net> writes:
>Everybody seems to be talking about the chain. I ask: what about the grit
>on the teeth? I find I have to spend a good bit of time every time I want
>to clean my drive train swabbing the grit from the cogs....are there any
>quicker ways of going about this chore?
Toothbrush (just get it back into the bathroom before your wife brushes her
teeth that night.
Otherwise try flossing them with cord.
Tom Gibb <TBG...@aol.com>
Tony DeAngelo
is an O-ring chain on your beloved shovelhead. I know you love them.
Alex Rodriguez
>
>
>I've decided to spray it with engine degreaser and then hose
>it off before relubing with a spray teflon lube.
>Comments?
You probably did a nice job of cleaning the outside of the chain. The
problem is that you want to clean the inside, where wear occurs. Also,
since you didn't clean the inside of the chain and added lub, you probably
will shorten the life of your chain. Dirt and lube makes a very good
grinding paste.
-----------------
Alex __O
_-\<,_
(_)/ (_)
Bruce Ball
----------------------------------------------
Yes, Alex, we can all imagine the grinding coumpound grittees quickly
wearing the chain after sneaking out from the inner depths of the
rollers.
However, to use an easy de-greaser-spray-cleaning method and to get
minimally 2500-3000 mi life out of an inexpensive chain (e.g. $10
PC-48) is practical; whereas putting $25-30 personal labor/time
investment to gain another possible thousand or two thru repeated
dis- and re- assembly/threading and cleaning is not.
(Chime in Andrew -- I believe you stated in the past that you
routinely replace chains @2500 mi).
Yesterday I degreased, soap & rinse sprayed, pastewaxed the bike (incl
spokes, hubside rims), lubed in 27min, without being in a hurry.
Grungeless cogs and rings, too, thru degrease and spray. Why treat a
chain like a piece of jewelry? If one gets 3000 @1/16" stretch, you
got yer moneysworth; treat yer bike to a new chain.
Leave us not belabour the chain in neurotic cleanliness; 'tis not
practical. And theoretical speculations be cast aside in favor of the
real world of happy, smooth-running quiet bikes for all season and
surface. And pawls that refresh with occasional gear oil down the
axleside clusters and freewheels. Clickety-clack don't get it, nor do
inadvertent double-shifts.
Pragmatism, I say (cheers to WJ), and the law of diminishing return:
These are to follow rather than mental perturbations -- the middle
path. Best bang for the buck in time and effort of maintenance,
riding, bike component life.
Spray on with degreaser, spray off with soap and water. My 3oz of
degreaser, emulsified, rinses to a healthy patch of growing grass
every 200-300 mi.
Bruce Ball
car-free for a year, zinging along to 8000 in '02, my trash by Bob
yak; no 5-ton diesel-fume spewers stop here to leave their cloud.
erl
"Garry Lee" <gl...@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:wO_99.1311$cP3....@news.iol.ie...
> The diesel leaves your chain sparkling and when it evaportes it leaves the
> oil which was in the bottle.
>
Since when does diesel evaporate?
g.daniels
****************
Iowa state has a major well water pollution problem from agricultural
chemicals. Iowa is not an urban industrial area.
************************
Oliver E. Seikel
and it is far ahead of the rest of the world.
--
Cordially
Oliver
"When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the
human race."
HG Wells
Remove "_spam_" before sending a reply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Garry Lee" <gl...@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:a9aa9.1366$cP3....@news.iol.ie...
> It ill-behoves Americans to lecture Europeans on pollution when California
> uses as much petrol as the whole of Europe! It really does.
>
> How in the name of the Good God is a half litre poured on a bit of ground
> going to get in any significant amount into the water-table.
> Ever hear of biodegredation?
Oliver E. Seikel
advise against cleaning the chain with solvents. http://www.rohloff.de
They have a section in English. They claim that the solvent remains in the
links and decreases the effectiveness of the new lubricant. They suggest
wiping the chain thoroughly and relubricating (of course, they insist on
using Oil of Rohloff).
I would think using a water based and biodegradable solvent (there are many
such available in the US, but harder to find in Europe) to clean the chain,
then thouroughly rinsing the chain with water, and then thoroughly drying it
before lubricating might be a solution.
--
Cordially
Oliver
"When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the
human race."
HG Wells
Remove "_spam_" before sending a reply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"MrPotatoHead" <4...@piddful.net.com> wrote in message
news:3d685af4...@news.prodigy.net...
Oliver E. Seikel
couldn't find an English translation, and I don't have the time to do a
translation myself.
Basically what they are saying is: Solvents have only a miniml effect on
cleaning the inside of the links, where the damage is done; keeping a chain
lubricated minimizes the effect of dirt (they compare the effectiveness of
sandpaper well moistened with oil), and that solvent residue decreases the
effectiveness of the lubricant. They recommend rigourous chain cleaning
only when the chains are very dirty, and recommend against using chain
cleaning devices.
Here is the text in German from http://www.rohloff.de:
Kettenreinigung:
Bereits in das Gelenk eingelagerte Schmutzpartikel können durch Reinigung
(auch mit einem Ultraschallgerät) kaum noch entfernt werden. Damit der
Schmutz gar nicht erst in die Gelenke gelangt, sollte die Kette äußerlich
möglichst sauber und trocken gehalten werden und dabei regelmäßig mit einem
leicht öligen Lappen abgewischt werden. Außerdem sollten die Zähne von
Ritzeln, Schaltrollen und Kettenblättern sauber gehalten werden, da diese
den Schmutz in die Kettengelenke drücken.
Nur bei sehr starker Verschmutzung sollte die Kette intensiv gereinigt
werden. Dabei raten wir von uns bekannten, handelsüblichen
Kettenreinigungsgeräten mit den entsprechenden
'Kettenreinigungsflüssigkeiten' ab, da das Innere der Kettengelenke sowieso
nicht richtig sauber wird. Vielmehr verbleibt die Reinigungsflüssigkeit in
den Gelenken und verbindet sich hinterher mit dem neu aufgetragenen
Schmierstoff, wobei der Schmierstoff in den uns bekannten Fällen seine
schmierenden Eigenschaften verliert.
Testen können Sie dieses Phänomen, indem Sie einen Tropfen Schmierstoff
mit etwas Reinigungsflüssigkeit vermischen.
Wir empfehlen als Kettenreinigungsflüssigkeiten deswegen nur Mittel, die
keine 100% entfettende Wirkung haben und schnell verdunsten, wie z.B. Diesel
oder Petroleum. Umweltfreundlicher sind Produkte auf der Basis von modernen
Geschirrspülmittelkonzentraten. Diese reinigen recht gut und lassen sich
nach Anwendung leicht mit Wasser aus dem Gelenk spülen. Möglich ist auch die
Reinigung mit einem Dampfstrahlgerät.
Wichtig ist, daß nach jeder Intensivreinigung die Kette unbedingt richtig
nachgeschmiert wird.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
> Interestly, Rohloff, the chain and Speedhub people, the last time I
> looked, advise against cleaning the chain with solvents.
> http://www.rohloff.de They have a section in English. They claim
> that the solvent remains in the links and decreases the
> effectiveness of the new lubricant. They suggest wiping the chain
> thoroughly and relubricating (of course, they insist on using Oil of
> Rohloff).
You should consider that Rohloff sells chain lube and in conversation
with him at the bicycle show last year it was apparent that he either
did not want to acknowledge it or didn't understand that chains wear
out primarily from road grit and that wiping a chain cannot remove the
abrasive slurry inside a chain link.
> I would think using a water based and biodegradable solvent (there
> are many such available in the US, but harder to find in Europe) to
> clean the chain, then thoroughly rinsing the chain with water, and
> then thoroughly drying it before lubricating might be a solution.
The best is a solvent wash-tank at your local bicycle or auto shop.
The residual solvent can be allowed to evaporate before lubrication
but lubrication a dirty chain is what kills chains.
http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/8d.2.html
Jobst Brandt <jobst....@stanfordalumni.org> Palo Alto CA
Oliver E. Seikel
--
Cordially
Oliver
"When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the
human race."
HG Wells
Remove "_spam_" before sending a reply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<jobst....@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
news:Erzb9.15793$Ik.3...@typhoon.sonic.net...
> Oliver E. Seikel writes:
>
> > Interestly, Rohloff, the chain and Speedhub people, the last time I
> > looked, advise against cleaning the chain with solvents.
> > http://www.rohloff.de They have a section in English. They claim
> > that the solvent remains in the links and decreases the
> > effectiveness of the new lubricant. They suggest wiping the chain
> > thoroughly and relubricating (of course, they insist on using Oil of
> > Rohloff).
>
> You should consider that Rohloff sells chain lube and in conversation
> with him at the bicycle show last year it was apparent that he either
> did not want to acknowledge it or didn't understand that chains wear
> out primarily from road grit and that wiping a chain cannot remove the
> abrasive slurry inside a chain link.
>
Thanks for your comments, but it would be good to have some independant
testing and evaluation of this. I have two Rohloff Speedhubs, and I have
great respect for the technical capabilities of these people. There chain
is first class, although expensive, and I am not sure that chainlube is
their primary business.
Some objective testing is required, and the results should be published. So
far I have heard a lot of opinions, but no conclusions based on objective
testing.
> > I would think using a water based and biodegradable solvent (there
> > are many such available in the US, but harder to find in Europe) to
> > clean the chain, then thoroughly rinsing the chain with water, and
> > then thoroughly drying it before lubricating might be a solution.
>
> The best is a solvent wash-tank at your local bicycle or auto shop.
> The residual solvent can be allowed to evaporate before lubrication
> but lubrication a dirty chain is what kills chains.
>
This begs the question, which is, what really happens when a solvent is
applied, and how it is applied. In other words, is there an effective
method of washing out grit in the internal part of the chain links? If not,
then the Rohloff recommendation of frequent lubing/oiling is the only
answer. If an effective amount of the grit is washed out, then the question
remains whether this is offset by the negative effect of the residual
solvent on the new lubricant. -- and whether this is affected by the solvent
used. A very simple test would be to: 1) start with a dirty chain that has
had lots of use after becoming dirty. 2) Clean the exterior of the chain.
3) Wash the chain with a solvent. 4) determine the particulate matter in
the remaining solvent. This test in itself would not be conclusive, because
it would not tell you whether any grit is left inside the chain, but it
would at least tell you whether any grit has been washed out of the links.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> You should consider that Rohloff sells chain lube and in
>> conversation with him at the bicycle show last year it was apparent
>> that he either did not want to acknowledge it or didn't understand
>> that chains wear out primarily from road grit and that wiping a
>> chain cannot remove the abrasive slurry inside a chain link.
> Thanks for your comments, but it would be good to have some
> independant testing and evaluation of this. I have two Rohloff
> Speedhubs, and I have great respect for the technical capabilities
> of these people. There chain is first class, although expensive,
> and I am not sure that chainlube is their primary business.
You are comparing their chain with other 4-part chains (the only ones
left on the market) but their chain is a dog compared to prior 5-part
chains such as the Regina CX-S. I have ridden two tours in the alps
(2000+mi) and a year around here for 12000 miles service and am still
under 0.5% wear. In other words, those chains lasted two seasons
(20,000mi) where no 4-part chain has lasted 2500 mi with less than
0.5% wear.
Rohloff only manufactures the chains and hubs, they did not design it.
> Some objective testing is required, and the results should be
> published. So far I have heard a lot of opinions, but no
> conclusions based on objective testing.
My tests are over many years and they are quantitative. I cleaned
both types of chains with the same regularity and method. I think
that conclusively shows the difference within a factor of +-2 and much
better. The results are so striking that I don't care to slice it
finer. No motorcycle would use the 4-part chain because it is so dirt
sensitive and has such poor bearing contact internally.
>>> I would think using a water based and biodegradable solvent (there
>>> are many such available in the US, but harder to find in Europe)
>>> to clean the chain, then thoroughly rinsing the chain with water,
>>> and then thoroughly drying it before lubricating might be a
>>> solution.
>> The best is a solvent wash-tank at your local bicycle or auto shop.
>> The residual solvent can be allowed to evaporate before lubrication
>> but lubrication a dirty chain is what kills chains.
> This begs the question, which is, what really happens when a solvent
> is applied, and how it is applied. In other words, is there an
> effective method of washing out grit in the internal part of the
> chain links? If not, then the Rohloff recommendation of frequent
> lubing/oiling is the only answer.
I think you want to believe what they advertise. I think the item to
which I gave the WWW link and what I have said here is conclusive. If
you find a technical flaw in that, I would like to hear about it.
> If an effective amount of the grit is washed out, then the question
> remains whether this is offset by the negative effect of the
> residual solvent on the new lubricant. -- and whether this is
> affected by the solvent used. A very simple test would be to: 1)
> start with a dirty chain that has had lots of use after becoming
> dirty. 2) Clean the exterior of the chain. 3) Wash the chain with a
> solvent. 4) determine the particulate matter in the remaining
> solvent. This test in itself would not be conclusive, because it
> would not tell you whether any grit is left inside the chain, but it
> would at least tell you whether any grit has been washed out of the
> links.
Don't be so obtuse. How do you tell when your hands are clean enough
when washing them or when a jersey is clean enough when manually
washed in the sink? When visibly no more dirt comes out, it's clean
enough. In contrast, I take it you would rather wipe the chain with a
rag (to make it look nice) and not clean the inside where wear occurs.
>> http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/8d.2.html
Did you consider what this item in the FAQ proposes? It seems you
have your mind made up and don't want to be confused with facts.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> You should consider that Rohloff sells chain lube and in
>> conversation with him at the bicycle show last year it was apparent
>> that he either did not want to acknowledge it or didn't understand
>> that chains wear out primarily from road grit and that wiping a
>> chain cannot remove the abrasive slurry inside a chain link.
> Thanks for your comments, but it would be good to have some
> independant testing and evaluation of this. I have two Rohloff
> Speedhubs, and I have great respect for the technical capabilities
> of these people. There chain is first class, although expensive,
> and I am not sure that chainlube is their primary business.
You are comparing their chain with other 4-part chains (the only ones
left on the market) but their chain is a dog compared to prior 5-part
chains such as the Regina CX-S. I have ridden two tours in the alps
(2000+mi) and a year around here for 14000 miles service and am still
under 0.5% wear. In other words, those chains lasted two seasons
(20,000mi) where no 4-part chain has lasted 2500 mi with less than
0.5% wear. I have done this test over six years with the same
results.
Rohloff only manufactures the chains and hubs, they do no design.
> Some objective testing is required, and the results should be
> published. So far I have heard a lot of opinions, but no
> conclusions based on objective testing.
My tests are over many years and they are quantitative. What do you
want when you say independent and objective? Your choice of words
could be taken as an assessment of my intelligence and veracity.
I cleaned both types of chains with the same regularity and method. I
think that conclusively shows the difference within a factor of two
(actually better). This method was compared to durability under the
wipe and oil method that resulted in more than double the wear rate.
The results are so striking that I don't care to slice it finer.
beyond that, no motorcycle uses a 4-part chain with its dirt
sensitivity and poor internal bearing contact.
>>> I would think using a water based and biodegradable solvent (there
>>> are many such available in the US, but harder to find in Europe)
>>> to clean the chain, then thoroughly rinsing the chain with water,
>>> and then thoroughly drying it before lubricating might be a
>>> solution.
>> The best is a solvent wash-tank at your local bicycle or auto shop.
>> The residual solvent can be allowed to evaporate before lubrication
>> but lubrication a dirty chain is what kills chains.
> This begs the question, which is, what really happens when a solvent
> is applied, and how it is applied. In other words, is there an
> effective method of washing out grit in the internal part of the
> chain links? If not, then the Rohloff recommendation of frequent
> lubing/oiling is the only answer.
I think you want to believe what they advertise. I think the item to
which I gave the WWW link and what I have said here is conclusive. If
you find a technical flaw in that, I would like to hear about it.
> If an effective amount of the grit is washed out, then the question
> remains whether this is offset by the negative effect of the
> residual solvent on the new lubricant. -- and whether this is
> affected by the solvent used. A very simple test would be to: 1)
> start with a dirty chain that has had lots of use after becoming
> dirty. 2) Clean the exterior of the chain. 3) Wash the chain with a
> solvent. 4) determine the particulate matter in the remaining
> solvent. This test in itself would not be conclusive, because it
> would not tell you whether any grit is left inside the chain, but it
> would at least tell you whether any grit has been washed out of the
> links.
Don't be so obtuse. How do you tell when your hands are clean enough
when washing them or when a jersey is clean enough when manually
washed in the sink? When visibly no more dirt comes out, it's clean
enough. In contrast, I take it you would rather wipe the chain with a
rag (to make it look nice) and not clean the inside where wear occurs.
>> http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/8d.2.html
Did you consider what this item in the FAQ proposes? It seems you
have your mind made up and don't want to be confused with facts.
Jobst Brandt <jobst....@stanfordalumni.org> Palo Alto CA
Bike Dude
A professor in Michigan (UofM?) did a study on roller chain
transmissions like bicycle chains. I saw this in a trade journal, like
Machine Design or something, not a bike mag. His methodology was
unique: he set up a chain drive system and monitored it with an infrared
camera sensitive to minute temperature changes (about 0.1milliKelvin as
I recall). The premise of his study was that any losses would show up as
heat (a temperature rise) which he would convert into energy over time
and hence power loss and compare it to the power being transmitted for a
percent energy loss (or the compliment, efficiency). But the best parts
were his conclusions:
1 - chain drives are remarkabley efficient, topping out past 99% (less
than 1% loss). This is much better than any type of gear system or belt
system.
2 - the biggest contributor to energy loss was contamination (dirt).
3 - it is better to run a chain dry that to run it dirty (and lubricated).
4 - a dry chain can still be quite efficient (high 90's, if I recall)
5 - the best thing a lubricant can do is keep out dirt
6 - a chain with dirty oil is less efficient that a totally clean and
dry chain
The numbering is mine, not his. I wish I could remember more, like the
publication I read it in or the professors name. I don't know why I
recall that he was from Michigan (automotive tie-in, perhaps).
As mentioned elsewhere, I now clean my chains in a two-step solvent
bath. I lubricat with 90wt marine grade EPL, thinned with a very light
solvent to help it penetrate the inner workings. The solvent is only a
carrier, it quickly dries. I wipe like hell because oil on the outside
only attracts dirt. I am thinking of adding wax to my mix to make it
more "dry" but keeping the 90wt EPL in the mix.
Robert McDonald
about time to contribute a wee something.
> When my bottle is full, I will come back here and post to see if anyone
> has access to a mass spectrometer and the inclination to do a little
> bicycle research.
I run the SEM and electron microprobe labs here at Glasgow University
where we analyse all sorts of geological and archaeological stuff as
well as samples from electronic, electrical and mechanical
engineering.
Just yesterday I was playing aroung with our new analytical system
(Isis EDS) on our SEM and I made up two samples. One from under the
mudguard and one from my 'settling tank' bottle (I alternate two
chains cleaned in my ultrasonic tank).
The results, while not quantitative as the samples would have to be
flat and polished for that, were that there was much more iron and
nickel in the 'chain grit' sample than from the 'road grit' one. I
also saw several larger bits of aluminium (0.5 - 1 micron) in the
'chain grit' sample not present in the 'road grit'.
What this means (being a qualitative 'look see' only) I don't know
(apart from the fact that your chain, block and chainrings are
wearing!.
Robert McDonald
8000 miles a year commuting, racing and training
Scotland
David Damerell
>I've decided to spray it with engine degreaser and then hose
>it off before relubing with a spray teflon lube.
Sachs/SRAM chains are dirt cheap. At any sensible valuation of my own
time, it's far cheaper to replace chains slightly more often than to mess
about cleaning them. Oil 'em in the Sheldon 'cleans out the insides'
style, if you like.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
> Sachs/SRAM chains are dirt cheap. At any sensible valuation of my
> own time, it's far cheaper to replace chains slightly more often
> than to mess about cleaning them. Oil 'em in the Sheldon 'cleans out
> the insides' style, if you like.
In that belief, I bought a box full of these and was disappointed with
their extremely high wear rate that is 10x what my Regina CX-S (five
part chain) had. In that respect I was riding on a half worn out
chain more often than should be and had to replace sprockets often.
The five part chain lasts more than 20,000 miles. It would probably
last longer if I didn't ride on dirt roads as much as I do.
Tod Meinke
in the world. It's spread out. It produces lots of food for the US and
abroad. People like to drive around the state because it's very beautiful.
The weather is always good, so there's more time to enjoy the place.
Tod Meinke
threatening concoction you choose. it's way faster and more productive than
cleaning it while on the bike.
"Luigi de Guzman" <luigi...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:0Wpa9.17068$082.9...@news1.east.cox.net...
>
> "TBGibb" <tbg...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20020826004359...@mb-bj.aol.com...
> > In article <a9aa9.1366$cP3....@news.iol.ie>, "Garry Lee" <gl...@iol.ie>
> writes:
> >
> > >It ill-behoves Americans to lecture Europeans on pollution when
> California
> > >uses as much petrol as the whole of Europe! It really does.
> >
> > Ad homenin.
>
> 'ad hominem' velisti dicere, nonne?
>
> <verba secta>
>
> > The diesel fuel you suggested would evaporate eventually, and petrol
would
> do
> > so even faster. The acutal oil residue left behind would be very
slight,
> much
> > less than is deposited on the center of the road by drips from oil plugs
> and
> > slightly bad seals and surely would biodegrade. But I would rather not
do
> that
> > if I can help it. I would love to hear how other people do deal with
> cleaning
> > their chains on long tours. A deal with a local mechanic would be ideal
> if he
> > would run it through his solvent bath.
>
> Everybody seems to be talking about the chain. I ask: what about the
grit
> on the teeth? I find I have to spend a good bit of time every time I want
> to clean my drive train swabbing the grit from the cogs....are there any
> quicker ways of going about this chore?
>
> -Luigi
>
>
>
Tom Ace
> Rohloff only manufactures the chains and hubs, they do no design.
Who designed the Speedhub, then?
Tom Ace
David Damerell
>David Damerell writes:
>>Sachs/SRAM chains are dirt cheap. At any sensible valuation of my
>>own time, it's far cheaper to replace chains slightly more often
>>than to mess about cleaning them. Oil 'em in the Sheldon 'cleans out
>>the insides' style, if you like.
>In that belief, I bought a box full of these and was disappointed with
>their extremely high wear rate that is 10x what my Regina CX-S (five
>part chain) had.
Hm. But the choice today isn't between a bushingful [1] chain and a SRAM
chain; it's between a SRAM chain and some other bushingless chain. Unless
you still have some source for these?
>In that respect I was riding on a half worn out
>chain more often than should be and had to replace sprockets often.
I don't see why that would be; if you replace each less-durable chain at
the same point you would a more durable one, presumably the same
proportion of your riding will be on a slightly worn chain.
>The five part chain lasts more than 20,000 miles. It would probably
>last longer if I didn't ride on dirt roads as much as I do.
That and the 10x above would suggest that the SRAM is good for only 2,000
miles; there's no measurable wear on the one I have on after 1,500 miles.
Perhaps they have improved?
I managed to wear out a Shimano after about 2,500 miles - and they cost 3
times as much, to add injury to insult.
[1] Yes, I know it's not a word.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> Rohloff only manufactures the chains and hubs, they do no design.
> Who designed the Speedhub, then?
Some clever engineer. If you talk to the Rohloffs, you'll recognize
dedicated and precise manufacturers but not people who design such a
complex and durable mechanism. Getting into any design details I ran
into dead ends of technical comprehension.
This is not uncommon. Cino Cinelli couldn't make a braze joint or
form a handlebar but he like his friend and contemporary Tullio
Campagnolo was instrumental in bringing good bicycles and equipment
to the market.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>>> Sachs/SRAM chains are dirt cheap. At any sensible valuation of my
>>> own time, it's far cheaper to replace chains slightly more often
>>> than to mess about cleaning them. Oil 'em in the Sheldon 'cleans
>>> out the insides' style, if you like.
>> In that belief, I bought a box full of these and was disappointed
>> with their extremely high wear rate that is 10x what my Regina CX-S
>> (five part chain) had.
> Hm. But the choice today isn't between a bushingful [1] chain and a
> SRAM chain; it's between a SRAM chain and some other bushingless
> chain. Unless you still have some source for these?
I have some.
>> In that respect I was riding on a half worn out chain more often
>> than should be and had to replace sprockets often.
> I don't see why that would be; if you replace each less-durable
> chain at the same point you would a more durable one, presumably the
> same proportion of your riding will be on a slightly worn chain.
I can ride a chain two years and then replace the chain and one or two
sprockets or I can do it more often as one writer said here. Even
replacing the chain regularly does not eliminate replacing sprockets.
>> The five part chain lasts more than 20,000 miles. It would
>> probably last longer if I didn't ride on dirt roads as much as I
>> do.
> That and the 10x above would suggest that the SRAM is good for only
> 2,000 miles; there's no measurable wear on the one I have on after
> 1,500 miles. Perhaps they have improved?
As I said, I ride in all kinds of weather an good and bad roads, many
of which are dirt. 2000mi on an SRAM is about the limit for me. That
is where the wear approaches 1%.
> I managed to wear out a Shimano after about 2,500 miles - and they
> cost 3 times as much, to add injury to insult.
Riders today do not know that chains of old lasted so much longer and
take these short lived chains as the norm. I am still annoyed at the
chain industry "don't care" attitude that is much like the tire folks
who sell non carbon and colored tires. Soon no one will know that
tires should last about 3000 miles even when climbing many hills.
David Damerell
>>SRAM chain; it's between a SRAM chain and some other bushingless
>>chain. Unless you still have some source for these?
>I have some.
Yes, but you're not me. The choice for me is a cheap SRAM chain or an
expensive Shimano chain, neither of which will last as long as I might
like, but with one a third the price of the other it's not a hard choice.
>>That and the 10x above would suggest that the SRAM is good for only
>>2,000 miles; there's no measurable wear on the one I have on after
>>1,500 miles. Perhaps they have improved?
>As I said, I ride in all kinds of weather an good and bad roads, many
>of which are dirt.
Hm. Well, I don't ride on much dirt, but I do ride in all weathers, and we
have rather more weather here than you do. :-)
>take these short lived chains as the norm. I am still annoyed at the
>chain industry "don't care" attitude that is much like the tire folks
>who sell non carbon and colored tires. Soon no one will know that
>tires should last about 3000 miles even when climbing many hills.
Notwithstanding the stories here about sidewall splits, the Conti GP3000s
still seem to be good for that. Mind you, I don't go up quite so many
hills as some people.
Bill Davidson
> Hey Euro Boy, California has lots of people. It's the 5th largest economy
> in the world. It's spread out. It produces lots of food for the US and
> abroad. People like to drive around the state because it's very beautiful.
> The weather is always good, so there's more time to enjoy the place.
Stop saying that! California is a horrible horrible place. We have
earthquakes, fires, smog, crime etc. You don't want to come here, ever. Those
postcards and movies are just propaganda ;-).
--Bill Davidson
--
Please remove ".nospam" from my address for email replies.
Most people would agree that censors are a silly breed. In fact, it
surprises me how they ever manage to breed at all. -- Max Headroom
El Senor
> You are comparing their chain with other 4-part chains (the only ones
> left on the market) but their chain is a dog compared to prior 5-part
> chains such as the Regina CX-S.
Are these chains available anywhere today?
-Mike
Steve Palincsar
I don't know about that - but I wonder why nobody has mentioned that it
stinks to high heaven, and I can't imagine having a bike in the house
that has had diesel fuel poured on it. I couldn't stand the smell of
kerosene either.
It's mineral spirits for me! Lately I've been using coffee filters and
paper towels to filter used mineral spirits. Some obviously soaks into
the paper and ends up evaporating, but it's surprising how long a small
quantity lasts.
Steve Palincsar
> I notice that no one mentioned those chain cleaning gadgets. The ones
> that you can run the chain through without removing the chain from the
> bike. They seem to scrub with a solvent. Are these to be discounted as
> useless? I am not into working on my bike but the more I ride the more I
> think I should be, so I could use some input on chain cleaning.
I haven't used one in a dozen years or more, but the one I tried back
then was messy, ineffectual, and a right pain to use. It is EVER so much
easier to undo the powerlink on an SRAM chain and simply put it into a
container with mineral spirits, agitate every so often, soak, remove,
wash with sudsy water and rinse with clean water, and hang to dry for a
few minutes.
Not only does that really work, but also doesn't make messes, lets you
reuse the mineral spirits, and takes much less time.
Bike Dude
Steve, you had me right up to the sudsy water part. Why would take a
nice, clean chain that only had residue of mineral spirits on it and
contaminate with water??? One of the great thing about cleaning with
minerals spirits is NO WORRY about water in the chain - you can goe
straight to lubricating it.
Tod Meinke
Can't fool me - born and raised in CA.
"Bill Davidson" <bil...@cox.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:3D704B04...@cox.nospam.net...
Matt O'Toole
"David Damerell" <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:CDq*3V...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> MrPotatoHead <4...@piddful.net.com> wrote:
> >I've decided to spray it with engine degreaser and then hose
> >it off before relubing with a spray teflon lube.
> Sachs/SRAM chains are dirt cheap. At any sensible valuation of my own
> time, it's far cheaper to replace chains slightly more often than to mess
> about cleaning them. Oil 'em in the Sheldon 'cleans out the insides'
> style, if you like.
They are not cheap. Sure, $10 ones exist, but no bike shop ever sells them.
They only sell the fancy, $20 (or $40) ones. I resent having to pay $20
for a new chain 3-4 times a year.
I do like Powerlinks, though. It takes about five minutes to remove a
chain and clean it, by shaking it in a jar with some solvent.
Last night I got a neato KMC with a gen-u-wine Sachs Powerlink for 12 bucks
from Hokie Spokes. Thanks, Dave.
Matt O.
Matt O'Toole
older Regina, etc., even work with a modern 7, 8, or 9 speed drivetrain
(assuming it was narrow enough)?
Matt O.
<jobst....@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
news:U5Bb9.15841$Ik.3...@typhoon.sonic.net...
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
> Wasn't flexibility the reason for the newer bushingless chains?
> Would an older Regina, etc., even work with a modern 7, 8, or 9
> speed drivetrain (assuming it was narrow enough)?
Not at all. The 4-part chain was introduced by Sedis in the days of
10-speeds mainly because it got rid of four assembly steps and one
precision part per link. I recall when they were introduced with the
ad campaign that they were lighter than other chains. The reason for
this is that the upset collar is part of the side plate and therefore
does not detract from the cross section of the inner link plate as a
sleeve does. This enables use of less expensive steel as well.
The chains were initially about half the price of a good Regina chain
but as time went on, that went by the wayside. Meanwhile the rest of
the chain manufacturers either got out of the market or changed to
this design. As I said, you won't find these chains on any other
machine. No one is dumb enough to cut chain life more than fourfold
to save a few grams per chain.
As I said, with dirt and grime of trails and 2000 miles in the Alps
with rain and slop, my 5-part chains last 20000 miles. I haven't had
a "modern" chain last much more than 2500 miles. (life = 1% wear)
Matt O'Toole
<jobst....@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
news:14bk9.30082$Ik.6...@typhoon.sonic.net...
Well, then, I'd like to try an old Regina on my bike, just for fun. I do
come across them occasionally- in display cases in crusty old bike shops,
etc.
Also, I've noticed that among bushingless chains, the looser, more flexible
ones seem to wear out faster- a lot faster. The worst I ever had was a
DID, which only lasted a few hundred miles. The trails were really dusty
that summer, but still...
Matt O.
Jon Isaacs
>with rain and slop, my 5-part chains last 20000 miles. I haven't had
>a "modern" chain last much more than 2500 miles. (life = 1% wear)
What shifters are you using these chains with and where do you get these
chains?? Will they work with 7 speed indexing??
jon isaacs
David Damerell
>"David Damerell" <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
>>time, it's far cheaper to replace chains slightly more often than to mess
>>about cleaning them. Oil 'em in the Sheldon 'cleans out the insides'
>>style, if you like.
>They are not cheap. Sure, $10 ones exist, but no bike shop ever sells them.
I got over a year's worth (for me) from Highpath Engineering in the UK. If
you spread the cost of mail order over several chains, they cost about 6
quid each total - less than $10 apiece.
Tim McNamara
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Matt O'Toole writes:
>
> > Wasn't flexibility the reason for the newer bushingless chains?
> > Would an older Regina, etc., even work with a modern 7, 8, or 9
> > speed drivetrain (assuming it was narrow enough)?
>
> Not at all. The 4-part chain was introduced by Sedis in the days of
> 10-speeds mainly because it got rid of four assembly steps and one
> precision part per link.
<snip>
Once again in the bike industry, "progress" is frequently driven not by
the desire to improve technology but the desire to cut manufacturing
costs. Example include cartridge bottom brackets, cassettes, V-brakes,
TIG welding, aluminum frames, single- or no-eyelet rims...
> As I said, with dirt and grime of trails and 2000 miles in the Alps
> with rain and slop, my 5-part chains last 20000 miles. I haven't had
> a "modern" chain last much more than 2500 miles. (life = 1% wear)
20,000 miles is long chain life! Where do you get these rascals? I get
about 3,000 miles out of standard chains like Sachs.
Is there some sort of resource to see the differences between these
chain designs? I can't figure out what you're talking about and seeing
an exploded drawing would help.
Alan Braggins
> > Not at all. The 4-part chain was introduced by Sedis in the days of
> > 10-speeds mainly because it got rid of four assembly steps and one
> > precision part per link.
[...]
> Is there some sort of resource to see the differences between these
> chain designs? I can't figure out what you're talking about and seeing
> an exploded drawing would help.
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/chains.html has some fairly clear photos.
g.daniels
******Volvo's 544 l958-65, manuals also suggest avoiding bearing wash
in solvents, wash in light engine oil, sevral times I guess. Standard
Union also recommends light engine oil. Something to do with
unavailable anti freeze?? The 'fact' that an engineer sez after study:
oil is only good for keeping dirt out and, 2) dry chains run better
than oiled chains is remarkable. Maybe a similarity in weather? For
gear oil enthusiastists, hill country auto supply sells gear oils in
higher viscosities if you know someone in West Va. or Tenn.
Matt O'Toole
> I got over a year's worth (for me) from Highpath Engineering in the UK. If
> you spread the cost of mail order over several chains, they cost about 6
> quid each total - less than $10 apiece.
That's what I usually do, too. I try to get PC-48 on sale for $10 or less.
I've run out of them, though.
Matt O.
The Pomeranian
$9.95
http://www.excelsports.com/item.asp?major=1&minor=11&description=Chain+PC%2D48&vendorCode=SRAM
The store is at your door. Stock up when you need some other stuff too,
like cassettes, etc.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> As I said, with dirt and grime of trails and 2000 miles in the Alps
>> with rain and slop, my 5-part chains last 20000 miles. I haven't
>> had a "modern" chain last much more than 2500 miles. (life=1% wear)
> What shifters are you using these chains with and where do you get
> these chains?? Will they work with 7 speed indexing??
It's like MA-2 rims, I stockpiled all the ones I could find and am
using stuff that ain't no more. The CS-X Regina chain is the
classiest chain made. Its outer side plates on the inward side are
cut out on the edge that faces the sprocket while the outside ones are
chrome plated and full. The cutouts made shifting to lager sprockets
easier back in the days before side cut and tip mutilated sprockets on
cassettes were used. It is an asymmetrical chain that goes on only
one way of four possible.
I use a SunTour or Shimano 8-speed derailleur. I have used both.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
> Is there some sort of resource to see the differences between these
> chain designs? I can't figure out what you're talking about and
> seeing an exploded drawing would help.
Not an exploded drawing but one that shows the parts:
http://www.diamondchain.co.uk/
The left end of the chain shows that the inner side plate has a
tubular sleeve pressed into it. Chain rollers run on these sleeves
Between the side plates to form a link. Links are connected into a
chain by outer plates with pressed in pins that run inside the
sleeves.
In contrast, an upset collar 4-part chain has no sleeve and replaces
it with an an upset collar on the inner plate, two opposing plates
leaving a gap in the center, under the roller and around the link pin.
The reduced contact area and the direct path for contamination into
the link pin is its weakness. It is wear of the pins and upset
collars that lengthens chain pitch.
Some motorcycle chains even have an O-ring seal at the end of the
sleeves to prevent contamination and lubricant loss. The 4-part
bicycle chain ignores these problems while the 5-part chains did this
far better.
There's more on this on page 3 of this series of pictures, giving
nomenclature and details.
http://www.diamondchain.com/PDF/DC_cycle_chain.pdf
Click on the right-arrow At the bottom of the picture to get to page 3.
A Muzi
news:timmcn-262C4E....@gemini.visi.com...
-snip "modern chains suck" -
> Is there some sort of resource to see the differences between these
> chain designs? I can't figure out what you're talking about and seeing
> an exploded drawing would help.
Next time you have the opportunity, separate a link of scrap chain. More.
Take a set of inner plates apart. Look at an inside plate and notice that it
is not a flat plate, the hole for the rivet being shaped to form a locator
for the roller. Once, (still in other non-bicycle chain), the inside plates
were flat and a sleeve joined them. The roller rode on that sleeve and the
rivet passed inside that.
In modern "bushingless" chain, the lips of the sideplates do not form a
continuous support for the roller and the wear is noticebaly poorer.
--
Andrew Muzi
http://www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April 1971
Jeff Wills
> 20,000 miles is long chain life! Where do you get these rascals? I get
> about 3,000 miles out of standard chains like Sachs.
>
Dunno if they're still there, but I remember shoving a couple cases of
NOS Regina chains under the stairs back at Euro-Asia Imports.
'Course, it's been 12 years since I worked there, but your local
well-connected bike shop could call them up and ask...
Jeff
Karl Nelson
> with rain and slop, my 5-part chains last 20000 miles. I haven't had
> a "modern" chain last much more than 2500 miles. (life = 1% wear)
>
and later
> using stuff that ain't no more. The CS-X Regina chain is the
> classiest chain made. Its outer side plates on the inward side are
> cut out on the edge that faces the sprocket while the outside ones are
> chrome plated and full. The cutouts made shifting to lager sprockets
> easier back in the days before side cut and tip mutilated sprockets on
> cassettes were used. It is an asymmetrical chain that goes on only
> one way of four possible.
Do you attribute the longer life to the presence of the bushing, or
the high quality of the Regina materials and/or construction and
design?
I ask because the chain article by Sheldon Brown, while acknowledging
that chain wear is controversial, mentions several times the "greater
durability of bushingless chains" as if that, at least, were well
known and accepted.
Furthermore, I have here two 5-part chains which I got 2/$5 thinking
that it was cheap enough to be useful even if not as good as the
4-part. But if they really last longer, it could turn out to be a
pretty good deal. They are not Regina and they are symmetric, but I'd
sure be happy if I could get even 10,000 miles from them.
If Sheldon is following this thread: It would be great if you'd
explain your assertion about durability, especially in light of the
counter-example given here.
Thanks,
Karl.
Sheldon Brown
>>As I said, with dirt and grime of trails and 2000 miles in the Alps
>>with rain and slop, my 5-part chains last 20000 miles. I haven't had
>>a "modern" chain last much more than 2500 miles. (life = 1% wear)
>>
> and later
>
>>using stuff that ain't no more. The CS-X Regina chain is the
>>classiest chain made. Its outer side plates on the inward side are
>>cut out on the edge that faces the sprocket while the outside ones are
>>chrome plated and full. The cutouts made shifting to lager sprockets
>>easier back in the days before side cut and tip mutilated sprockets on
>>cassettes were used. It is an asymmetrical chain that goes on only
>>one way of four possible.
>
and asked:
> Do you attribute the longer life to the presence of the bushing, or
> the high quality of the Regina materials and/or construction and
> design?
>
> I ask because the chain article by Sheldon Brown, while acknowledging
> that chain wear is controversial, mentions several times the "greater
> durability of bushingless chains" as if that, at least, were well
> known and accepted.
When the Sedisport chain appeared on the market, I believe it was in the
early '80s, but might have been earlier, it was the broad consensus
among mechanics I associated with that Sedisport chains were lasting
notably longer than other chains. These were the first bushingless
chains that appeared on my radar screen.
> If Sheldon is following this thread: It would be great if you'd
> explain your assertion about durability, especially in light of the
> counter-example given here.
It is very difficult to make scientifically valid comparisons of chain
wear in real-world conditions. I've seen Jobst's report before. I
suspect that his 20,000 mile chain damaged his freewheel, and that the
worn freewheel caused more rapid wear of subsequent chains, but I could
be wrong. Jobst has advised allowing chains to elongate by 1/8" in the
foot before replacement. http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/8d.2.html
My rule-of-thumb has always been that 1/16" in the foot is time for a
new chain, and 1/8" in the foot implies that the cluster is ruined.
Maybe I'm overcautious, maybe Jobst is over-optimistic, hard to prove
one way or t'other.
Different lubrication schemes and gear usage habits will also affect
chain longevity, so it's difficult to make meaningful comparisons with
different riders, different terrain, different weather etc.
My theory of the reason for the greater longevity I've observed with
bushingless chains has to do with lubricant flow, as I explain in my
Chains article http://sheldonbrown.com/chains.html. If this theory is
correct, you might or might not get the benefit of this, depending on
your lubrication procedure.
The move toward bushingless chains has coincided with other changes in
derailer systems, changes that improve shifting performance or provide
more gears, but often at a cost in chain wear. There is no question
that the chains on 1960s bikes lasted much longer than chains on 2000s
bikes, but it is not clear how much of the difference is due to the
narrowness of newer chains, how much to the fact that people can now get
away with shifting under load, how much to worse chainline from wider
clusters, how much to greater chain tension from the use of smaller
chainrings and sprocket, how much from the different shaped sprocket
teeth responsible for the improved shifting, or even how much from the
use of less effective lubricants by riders more concerned with
cleanliness than lubrication.
I only know of one valid way to compare different types of chains, and
that is to make up a single chain from separate lengths of different
brands/models of chain, ride it, then measure the elongation of the
different sections. Back in the '80s I did this experiment on the chain
of one of my tandems, using Sedisport (4 part) and some well-regarded
Regina (Oro?) (5 part.) The elongation was less with the Sedisport,
that was proof enough for me.
And now, on to Las Vegas!
Sheldon "Empiricist" Brown
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Check out the Shostakovitch 24 Preludes & Fugues for Piano, Op. 87. |
| Sort of like "Das Wohltemperierte Klavier" on drugs. Way cool! |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772, 617-244-1040 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com
Karl Nelson
> > Do you attribute the longer life to the presence of the bushing, or
> > the high quality of the Regina materials and/or construction and
> > design?
> It is very difficult to make scientifically valid comparisons of chain
> wear in real-world conditions. I've seen Jobst's report before. I
This is a good point. Thank you for taking the time to elaborate.
> My rule-of-thumb has always been that 1/16" in the foot is time for a
> new chain, and 1/8" in the foot implies that the cluster is ruined.
> Maybe I'm overcautious, maybe Jobst is over-optimistic, hard to prove
> one way or t'other.
Well in my case, twice even 1/16"/ft has given enough wear on a 13-t
and 15-t cog that the new chain skipped, so I'd hardly call it
overcautious. I've often wondered why my experience differs. I plan
to change the chain even sooner next time. Do you have any wisdom to
offer on this?
> I only know of one valid way to compare different types of chains, and
> that is to make up a single chain from separate lengths of different
> brands/models of chain, ride it, then measure the elongation of the
> different sections. Back in the '80s I did this experiment on the chain
> of one of my tandems, using Sedisport (4 part) and some well-regarded
> Regina (Oro?) (5 part.) The elongation was less with the Sedisport,
> that was proof enough for me.
>
> And now, on to Las Vegas!
>
> Sheldon "Empiricist" Brown
Very wise. Hard to argue about different condition in that case!
Thanks,
Karl.