Reducing bicycle chain service to zero

[Andre Jute]

On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 7:15:38 PM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> To get rid of the bicycle chain.

That's a problem solved quite well by the Gates Belt Drive. It does however require a frame alteration -- a split rear triangle -- that adds weight and does nothing for the intrinsic strength and longevity of the bike.

There are other ways of solving the bicycle chain's problems without unintended side effects. For instance, the chain's short life and ferocious demands for love and attention are easily solved by running the chain for its entire life on the factory lube and inside a Hebie Chainglider. See
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=6813.0
where I describe just such an experiment.

Andre Jute
Lateral thinking

[bob prohaska]

Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 7:15:38 PM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>> To get rid of the bicycle chain.
>
> That's a problem solved quite well by the Gates Belt Drive. It does however require a frame alteration -- a split rear triangle -- that adds weight and does nothing for the intrinsic strength and longevity of the bike.
>
> There are other ways of solving the bicycle chain's problems without unintended side effects. For instance, the chain's short life and ferocious demands for love and attention are easily solved by running the chain for its entire life on the factory lube and inside a Hebie Chainglider. See

What's the impediment to using sealed chains, as are used on most motorcycles?
The oldest motorcycle chain in my stable is pushing 60k miles (not km) and is
still quite serviceable. I've been far from dilligent about cleaning and oiling.
Indeed, oil is unhelpful, the links are sealed and oil just attracts dust.

Thanks for reading,

bob prohaska

[jbeattie]

Joerg is working on a design for bicycles.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Andre Jute]

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 3:07:38 AM UTC+1, bob prohaska wrote:

Weight? Cost? Residual cleaning requirements of the chain? Cleaning requirements of the cogs?

Andre Jute

[John B.]

Actually there is a standard 1/2" x 5/16" sealed chain manufactured in
a number of widths ( ISO R606, 08B-1) and while it is too wide to use
on a derailer system it might work for a single speed. Certainly well
enough to determine whether it would be an advantage on a bicycle.

The maker describes these chains as "maintenance free, lube free
roller chain".

On the other hand The Complete Guide to Chain
© 1997 by U.S. Tsubaki, Inc. states, in reference to sealed chains,
that: "The link plates holding the O-rings are under compression. This
means greater force is required to articulate the chain, and the
transmitted power is decreased."
--
cheers,

John B.

[Tosspot]

I've stopped using Hebie Chaingliders. They are very draggy by design,
which I could put up with, are a faff to remove, which again I could put
up with, but critically I've lunched two of them in normal use where the
rear sprocket cover has caught in something and wrapped around the
chain. I use the Hebie Chainbar now, it's good enough, looks stylish,
and doesn't make a dive for the whirly bits at unexpected moments.

[sms]

To do an O-ring chain on a bicycle would require an increased link size,
in both length and width. The chain wheels and sprockets would all have
to change to a new standard. Wider links would mean the end of 9, 10, &
11 speed rear cassettes.

It still might make sense to do O-ring chains for "transportational"
bicycles where the increased losses due to weight would not be a big issue.

There have also been bicycles with drive shafts (and internal hub gearing).

The "ferocious demands" of a chain are vastly overstated. Some cyclists
spend an inordinate amount of time and money on chain maintenance for no
real benefit, other than it makes them feel good to believe that they
are doing something good for their chain. And worse, some methods of
chain cleaning and lubrication that they are using neither clean, nor
lubricate.

Every year at Interbike you can be sure of two things: 1) there will be
about 25 new creations of energy drinks, gels, and bars, and 2) there
will be about 25 new creations of chain lubricants and cleaners.

At least on cars, there are standards for motor oils and foolishly
paying more for a gourmet oil is pretty rare. With bicycles, you must
have a hundred different chain lubricants and fifty different chain
cleaner formulas when all you really need to properly clean and
lubricate a chain is a petroleum based solvent like kerosene, and a
foaming chain lubricant which is able to penetrate between the pin and
bushing. Instead, you have a lot of people with very clean chains but
only on the outside, and you have them dripping lubricant on the chain,
little of which ever reaches where it needs to go--it's akin to taking
vitamin and mineral supplements.

It is not necessary to remove a chain from the bicycle to clean and
lubricate it, and in fact it isn't even a good idea to do this on the
narrower chains for 10-11 speed rear cassettes. Those chain cleaning
machines do a very good job as long as you change the solvent several
times until it runs clean. As Sheldon wrote: "The on-the-bike system has
the advantage that the cleaning machine flexes the links and spins the
rollers. This scrubbing action may do a better job of cleaning the innards."

At least no one seems to be doing hot waxing of chains anymore!

[John B.]

On Thu, 19 May 2016 02:27:16 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

Oh? I thought that both James and Frank were chain waxers?
--
cheers,

John B.

[avag...@gmail.com]

Market prevails.

No more than 2500 miles HG50 ? clean every day...bottle shake with thinner..Epic or Valvo Synth/

average over the road clean conditions.

but the Hebie report is AAA !

road incidents, eg the random pebble ingestion...RPI...take extra expense for longer ? chain into nowhere

If belts appear in the TDF ...

[Frank Krygowski]

That's pretty dishonest selective quoting. Sheldon's page also says
"There are several ways that people try to clean their chains. Only
those which involve removing the chain from the bicycle are very
satisfactory."

>>
>> At least no one seems to be doing hot waxing of chains anymore!
>>
>
> Oh? I thought that both James and Frank were chain waxers?

That's what I do. My method's unusual, but it works great. It does not
involve removing the chain, melting pots of hot wax, squeaking after a
rain, or any of the other supposed evils of wax lubrication.
And BTW, it's not covered on Sheldon's site.

On today's ride, I noticed the guy on the Cervelo had an extreme grease
tattoo going up the entire back of his right calf. I don't get those,
and I don't get black gunk all over my cogs, chainrings, chainstays, etc.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Andre Jute]

You wrecker, you!

(sgnd) Concerned Cyclist

[Andre Jute]

Gentlemen, far be it from me to point out your perpetual shortfall of concentration and inability to stick to the subject, but just a gentle reminder that this thread is about reducing chain service, preferably to nil (as I have already achieved), not a place to brag about how many years of your life you have wasted flossing your chain*.

Andre Jute
Time is final frontier

* If that sounds obscene to you, you should wash your mind out with soap: it is dirty.

[jbeattie]

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 4:30:47 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> Gentlemen, far be it from me to point out your perpetual shortfall of concentration and inability to stick to the subject, but just a gentle reminder that this thread is about reducing chain service, preferably to nil (as I have already achieved), not a place to brag about how many years of your life you have wasted flossing your chain*.
>
> Andre Jute
> Time is final frontier
>

I just ignore mine. Problem solved.

Well, I do spray it now and then and put the chain-checker on it, but no flossing.

-- Jay Beattie.

[sms]

Yep. Just because a few cyclists are into recreational chain servicing
does not mean that most cyclists foolish enough to waste time on this.
Andre is railing against a problem that simply does not exist except for
all but a tiny number of riders. But looking at the number of different
companies repackaging lubricants and solvents into small bottles and
putting clever names on them, you'd think that most cyclists are into
this cr#p.

As Jobst advocated, clean your chain with kerosene, lube it with foaming
chain lube. Or skip the cleaning altogether and just spray with foaming
chain lube. Eschew all those fancy chain lube products. The two biggest
mistakes I see are a) "lubing" a chain with WD-40 (which is a solvent)
or b) using a lubricant that only gets on the outside of the chain and
not between the pin and roller.

I don't think anyone is still dipping their chains in hot wax after
Jobst, Sheldon, and Mike J. all explained how chain waxing is not a good
idea.

[James]

I alternate between 2 chains used on the one cassette. To facilitate
swapping the chains, I use a quick link (Connex). Removing or
installing a chain takes seconds, and no special one use only pin is needed.

I don't generally bother to clean a chain before I "cook" it in hot wax.
I use an old cooking pot that is half full of my "special" home brew
wax (more on that later), put it on the stove with the chain in it. I
like to get the wax temperature quite hot, and stir the chain a little
to flex the links and try to allow air to escape. I then remove the
chain with a hook, wipe it down with a rag, and hang it to cool.

I did this once with a short section of excess chain, then took it apart
to examine the wax penetration. It had certainly got in to all the
spaces within the chain.

In dry riding conditions, I may only maintain my chain about every
2000km (which is 2months for me).

My "special" wax is a blend of ordinary candle wax and motor oil and
gear oil. The aim is that there is enough oil in there so that the wax
is just going soft at about 40 degrees C.

I very rarely need to clean the cassette, chain rings or derailleurs.
They simply don't get filthy.

The chain doesn't squeak, unless perhaps it is near time to re-lube
anyway and I have a wet ride or two. If I've been for a wet ride the
day before, I might give the chain a quick squirt of WD40, which
dissolves some of the remaining wax and allows the oil to become more
mobile. Wipe off excess before riding.

I suggested to a local mobile bicycle mechanic that she might be
interested in trying a wax/oil blend and cooking chains. She said "No",
because heating the chain to hot wax temperatures would weaken it.

So much for science, eh?

--
JS

[Frank Krygowski]

And I wax my chain on the bike. I use a propane torch to warm about a
foot of chain, then I take a chunk of cold wax with an oil mix (much
like James') and scrape some onto the warm chain. Next I use the torch
to heat the chain links hotter, so the wax melts and runs in. I wipe
off the excess by running the chain through paper towels in my fist. I
protect the bike parts from the heat with a shield of aluminum sheet.

Takes maybe five minutes per bike, and I usually do several bikes at a
time, once I've got the torch, wax and paper towels out.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Andre Jute]

I we'll have to send you for re-education to Therapeutic Bicycle Chain Flossing School.

Andre Jute
Let a thousand flowers bloom

[Lou Holtman]

Does your motorcycle chain have to have lateral play like a derailleur bicycle chain needs? This complicates matters.

Lou

[jbeattie]

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 7:14:19 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
> On 19/05/16 21:02, John B. wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 May 2016 02:27:16 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
>
> >>
> >> At least no one seems to be doing hot waxing of chains anymore!
> >>
> >
> > Oh? I thought that both James and Frank were chain waxers?
> >
>
> I alternate between 2 chains used on the one cassette. To facilitate
> swapping the chains, I use a quick link (Connex). Removing or
> installing a chain takes seconds, and no special one use only pin is needed.
>
> I don't generally bother to clean a chain before I "cook" it in hot wax.
> I use an old cooking pot that is half full of my "special" home brew
> wax (more on that later), put it on the stove with the chain in it. I
> like to get the wax temperature quite hot, and stir the chain a little
> to flex the links and try to allow air to escape. I then remove the
> chain with a hook, wipe it down with a rag, and hang it to cool.

I use a skillet and olive oil -- medium high heat. Brown the chain on one side, turn it and then add shallots and a clove of fresh garlic. I then remove the chain and place it over a bed of fresh bar tape, al dente.

-- Jay Beattie.

[sms]

On 5/19/2016 7:14 PM, James wrote:
> On 19/05/16 21:02, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 May 2016 02:27:16 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>
>>>
>>> At least no one seems to be doing hot waxing of chains anymore!
>>>
>>
>> Oh? I thought that both James and Frank were chain waxers?
>>
>
> I alternate between 2 chains used on the one cassette. To facilitate
> swapping the chains, I use a quick link (Connex). Removing or
> installing a chain takes seconds, and no special one use only pin is
> needed.
>
> I don't generally bother to clean a chain before I "cook" it in hot wax.
> I use an old cooking pot that is half full of my "special" home brew
> wax (more on that later), put it on the stove with the chain in it. I
> like to get the wax temperature quite hot, and stir the chain a little
> to flex the links and try to allow air to escape. I then remove the
> chain with a hook, wipe it down with a rag, and hang it to cool.
>
> I did this once with a short section of excess chain, then took it apart
> to examine the wax penetration. It had certainly got in to all the
> spaces within the chain.

It does get in. But since it is not fluid, it quickly is rubbed off.
Chain waxing needs to be done very often, even when you add oil to it.

"Paraffin (canning wax), although clean, works poorly because it is not
mobile and cannot replenish the bearing surfaces once it has been
displaced."

The Connex link is essential on the narrower chains that are removed
from the bike for cleaning and lubrication. But how many people are
spending $20 on a Connex link in order to perform this sort of chain
maintenance which is no better than cleaning and lubing on the bicycle
which only takes a few minutes?

As an aside, it's a shame how John Allen is ruining Sheldon's web site
with so much misinformation. He rails against motor oil as a chain
lubricant because of the detergent properties. But non-detergent 30W
motor oil is readily available and works very well if you are soaking
your chain in oil.

[sms]

On 5/20/2016 7:01 AM, jbeattie wrote:

<snip>

> I use a skillet and olive oil -- medium high heat. Brown the chain on one side, turn it and then add shallots and a clove of fresh garlic. I then remove the chain and place it over a bed of fresh bar tape, al dente.

No need to me so sarcastic. There's nothing really wrong with
recreational chain maintenance. If it makes someone feel good thinking
that they doing something good for their chain then more power to them.
There are a lot worse ways to spend one's time.

What I don't like is recreational vehicle oil changing. "My grandfather
did 3000 mile oil changes so I should too," even though modern detergent
motor oils, when paired with a quality filter, can easily go 5000-10,000
miles with no negative effects at all.

And Jay, you live in Portland. Coffee scented chain lube is what you
should be using:
<http://www.jensonusa.com/Dumonde-Tech-Cafe-Chain-Lube>. Or you could
buy this <http://www.planttherapy.com/coffee-essential-oil> and add it
to whatever chain lube you are presently using. Get with the program.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/20/2016 10:29 AM, sms wrote:
> On 5/19/2016 7:14 PM, James wrote:
>>
>>
>> I don't generally bother to clean a chain before I "cook" it in hot wax.
>> I use an old cooking pot that is half full of my "special" home brew
>> wax (more on that later), put it on the stove with the chain in it. I
>> like to get the wax temperature quite hot, and stir the chain a little
>> to flex the links and try to allow air to escape. I then remove the
>> chain with a hook, wipe it down with a rag, and hang it to cool.
>>
>> I did this once with a short section of excess chain, then took it apart
>> to examine the wax penetration. It had certainly got in to all the
>> spaces within the chain.
>
> It does get in. But since it is not fluid, it quickly is rubbed off.
> Chain waxing needs to be done very often, even when you add oil to it.

It's a shame Mr. Scharf is so willing to expound on stuff he knows
nothing about.

Or to put it less politely: Bullshit!

For one example: Before riding coast to coast (east to west), I waxed
all three of our bikes' chains. Once the chains began to squeak
slightly, I used oil for the rest of the trip. But the first oil was
applied somewhere in Iowa, IIRC. That's despite daily rain for the
first two weeks of the trip.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

Every sauce has a pasta shape. Do you slice the tape to
linguini or pinch it into farfalle or what? I don't want to
screw this up.

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

[Duane]

There are some go to sauces that work on most pasta. I'd recommend an
Aioli sauce if you're not sure.

[Andre Jute]

On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 3:01:59 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
>
> I use a skillet and olive oil -- medium high heat. Brown the chain on one side, turn it and then add shallots and a clove of fresh garlic. I then remove the chain and place it over a bed of fresh bar tape, al dente.
>
> -- Jay Beattie.

we ate al fresco but the police arrived and said cannibalism is illegal

andre jute
this joke works only in illiteracy of all lower case

[Andre Jute]

Lidl has the best sauces.

Andre Jute
Short order cook

[Andre Jute]

On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 4:29:48 PM UTC+1, sms wrote:
>
> What I don't like is recreational vehicle oil changing. "My grandfather
> did 3000 mile oil changes so I should too," even though modern detergent
> motor oils, when paired with a quality filter, can easily go 5000-10,000
> miles with no negative effects at all.

Back when I was an undergraduate, I wrecked my Porsche racing in a storm drain up in what was then Rhodesia and, not having too much money and having to be in class 1500m (or so, just for the usual kibbitzer assholes) away on Monday morning, went to a Saturday-morning auction and bought an ex-police Jaguar Mk II with a quarter million miles on the clock. The seats, which had started red, were black with the accumulated sweat of beefy men in a car without air conditioning. But the engine was fine because every 3000 miles they drained the oil hot and filled it up and drove on, the car being in use 24 hours a day, never allowed to cool down. I put 10K on it as my personal party car because sooner or later that got wrecked (I replaced the inside with new seats and carpets from a crashed Mk II) and then we put another 30K on it as a tow car for my racing cars, and then I swapped it for another car. It was still going good, because my mechanics kept up the 3000m oil change schedule.

Perhaps you should send your smart granddad to RBT, Scharfie.

Andre Jute
Wisdom of the ages

[John B.]

I take it that you don't have a carbon fiber bike :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Fri, 20 May 2016 12:14:13 +1000, James <james.e...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I'm not sure what sort of pot you are using but I was using a sort of
electrical heated wok - because I found one that was cheap - and I was
doing what I believe you were doing. Wipe the crud off and throw it in
the pot.

Anyway, as my pot was a wok if you dropped it when it was cold the wax
fell out easily and I noticed that the bottom portion of the wax was
turning a dirty black while the upper portion remained wax colored. I
suspect that the hot wax is acting as a sort of solvent and actually
cleaning the chain as well as lubricating it.

As for hot wax softening chains... isn't science wonderful :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Fri, 20 May 2016 07:29:58 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

Are you selling these $20 "Connex links"? Or just don't know what you
are talking about?

After all, Wiggle is selling the 7 - 8 speed links at $3.82 and the 10
speed links at $8.40.

The description of your little business is sounding less and less like
"guerrilla marketing" and more and more like "Robber Baron Marketing".

>As an aside, it's a shame how John Allen is ruining Sheldon's web site
>with so much misinformation. He rails against motor oil as a chain
>lubricant because of the detergent properties. But non-detergent 30W
>motor oil is readily available and works very well if you are soaking
>your chain in oil.

You seem to have the bit in your teeth this morning, don't you. "He
rails against motor oil as a chain lubricant".

Actually what he said was " I [John Allen] rode once with someone who
had used it (motor oil) the day before, and her chain was already
squeaking."

While I would agree that facts are probably a bit thin on the ground
in your little universe, I would have to say that John's statement
sounds more like a "statement of fact" than a "rail".

(rail ~ verb 1. complain bitterly, 2. enclose with rails )
--
cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

Nope. I heard that stuff's water soluble. ;-)


--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Fri, 20 May 2016 18:06:26 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:

>sms <scharf...@geemail.com> considered Thu, 19 May 2016 02:27:16

>-0700 the perfect time to write:
>
>>On 5/18/2016 7:04 PM, bob prohaska wrote:
>>> Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 7:15:38 PM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> To get rid of the bicycle chain.
>>>>
>>>> That's a problem solved quite well by the Gates Belt Drive. It does however require a frame alteration -- a split rear triangle -- that adds weight and does nothing for the intrinsic strength and longevity of the bike.
>>>>
>>>> There are other ways of solving the bicycle chain's problems without unintended side effects. For instance, the chain's short life and ferocious demands for love and attention are easily solved by running the chain for its entire life on the factory lube and inside a Hebie Chainglider. See
>>>
>>> What's the impediment to using sealed chains, as are used on most motorcycles?
>>> The oldest motorcycle chain in my stable is pushing 60k miles (not km) and is
>>> still quite serviceable. I've been far from dilligent about cleaning and oiling.
>>> Indeed, oil is unhelpful, the links are sealed and oil just attracts dust.
>>
>>To do an O-ring chain on a bicycle would require an increased link size,
>>in both length and width.
>

>What a shame that you don't bother to spend a couple of minutes
>looking up common motorcycle chain standard sizes before confirming
>your stupidity again.
>1/2" pitch is THE standard for almost all two wheeler chains (much to
>the disgust of the metrication advocates). O-ring, X-ring and Z-ring
>chains are already easily available in 1.2" pitch.
>So you could fit them to a bike with hub gears as soon as you to the
>motorcycle dealer and buy one. No other changes required, although
>the sprockets could do with being a little wider.
>
I thought I had posted the solution to "O-ringed" bike chains. But
again.

They make a 1/2" x 5/16" O-ringed chain (ISO R606 08B-1). It is a
standard chain, off the shelf at better chain emporiums. It is too
wide to be used on the common derailer systems but might fit a single
sprocket system and thus could be installed on a rear hub geared
systems.

But in addition there are other terms that apply to chain systems,
such as "Sintered Bush Chain" a chain that is manufactured with lube
impregnated bushings and pins and requires no external lubrication. Or
"Sealed for Life Chain" Sealed roller chains are a maintenance free,
lube free roller chain.

After reading some of the larger chain maker's literature I am
beginning to believe that a bicycle chain is really at the bottom of
the chain world and thus is, of course, the cheapest.

Oh Yes, and from FB Chain (the UK arm of the FB Group, a leading
manufacturer and supplier of industrial chain).

"No matter how well a transmission system is designed, if it is not
properly lubricated its service life will be shortened.

Incorrect or insufficient lubrication is one of the primary reasons
for premature roller chain wear and eventual failure."
--
cheers,

John B.

[Andre Jute]

On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 3:54:38 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
>
> "No matter how well a transmission system is designed, if it is not
> properly lubricated its service life will be shortened.
>
> Incorrect or insufficient lubrication is one of the primary reasons
> for premature roller chain wear and eventual failure."

Unfortunately, in this case your excruciating talent for the obvious is misdirected and mistaken, Slow Johnny. That may be so in cheap and thoughtless installations. It isn't so in the installation under discussion in this thread in which you presume to lecture us.

You should have checked the link I provided in the first post in this thread and digested the material -- ah, never mind, it wouldn't do a knowitall like you any good. I'll just tell everyone else what you missed:

A bicycle chain from a good manufacturer (KMC, Connex, NOS Rohloff Revolver if you can get one) comes covered in gunk called "factory lube". On hand of deep cogitation on remarks by Sheldon Brown and Jobst Brand, I decided that, if your chain is from a maker who gives good gunk, what is far more important than further lubrication is keeping abrasives (dust, mud, cowshit, dead leaves, rust, energy bar crumbs) out of the chain. So I enclosed my chain and ran it on only the factory lube for its entire life, which turned out NOT to be shorter than a chain run in the same enclosure which received best quality lube (Oil of Rolloff ) every 500 miles. QED: you don't need to lubricate your chain if you run it in a quality enclosure.

Are you taking notes, Slow Johnny?

So now I have a zero maintenance transmission, and it doesn't chew chains either -- in fact, I'm up to near enough 3x the mileage per chain I managed ten years ago when I spent a lot of miserable and expensive hours on maintenance instead of riding or doing something useful and agreeable.

Andre Jute
Scientific method, not street corner gossip

[John B.]

On Fri, 20 May 2016 22:35:52 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Well, I've seen boats built of the stuff.... but they do burn :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

[James]

On 21/05/16 10:59, John B. wrote:

>
> I'm not sure what sort of pot you are using but I was using a sort of
> electrical heated wok - because I found one that was cheap - and I was
> doing what I believe you were doing. Wipe the crud off and throw it in
> the pot.
>
> Anyway, as my pot was a wok if you dropped it when it was cold the wax
> fell out easily and I noticed that the bottom portion of the wax was
> turning a dirty black while the upper portion remained wax colored. I
> suspect that the hot wax is acting as a sort of solvent and actually
> cleaning the chain as well as lubricating it.
>
> As for hot wax softening chains... isn't science wonderful :-)
>

I have suspected that the hot wax allows the external dirt to fall off
in the pot. One day I might examine what has collected in the bottom of
the wax pot.

I had a cheap quick link break one day. Luckily I was nearly right
outside a bike shop. I went in and bought a new quick link. Anyhow, at
the time my chain was a bit oily and black. One bicycle mechanic
commented that the old quick link broke because I used oil, and not
expensive bicycle chain lube. The future brains trust!

--
JS

[sms]

Everyone agrees that wax alone should not be used as a chain "lubricant"
and that oil must be added.

I tried an experiment with paraffin and 30W oil. I had to add a lot of
oil for there to be enough for the mixture to remain liquid enough for
it to be able to replenish lubricant. When cold, there were bits of wax
suspended in the mixture, but they would not have any effect on
lubricating the chain unless a bit floated over to the pin and roller
for a brief period of time.

If hot waxing is a necessity, then add enough oil to actually provide
lubrication between wax/oil changes. Since the purpose of waxing chains
was to eliminate wet lubricant attracting dirt, mixing the wax with oil
is not really achieving the goal anymore, though perhaps it's more about
the cleaning process where when heating a dirty chain the dirty oil gets
carried out by the hot wax, rather than by being carried out by kerosene
or other solvent.

I think I have the same general goal as Andre, to reduce bicycle chain
service to zero, but I am not willing to make the compromises he has
made to achieve that goal, so I'm willing to reduce bicycle chain
service to near zero, without making any compromises.

I met a guy at Tech Shop in San Jose who used to work for a bicycle
shop, and his shop had designed a chain maintenance system for bikes
brought in for service. They used a modified chain cleaning tool that
was able to circulate clean solvent into the tool using a small pump
while another pump pumped out the dirty solvent (it is not a pressurized
system so you have to have two pumps, one pumping in fresh solvent and
one pumping out dirty solvent. I think it was similar to this system:
<http://www.chainlubersystems.com/>. The problem with most chain
cleaning tools is that you have to remove and replace the solvent
several times to get a clean chain. It's less messy if you can add and
remove solvent without taking the device off the chain. Also, the tool
in that video is used for both cleaning and lubricating. I had two of
the chain cleaning tools, one for cleaning, one for lubing, until I
switched over to using foaming chain lubricant for lubrication, as
suggested by Jobst.

[John B.]

On Mon, 23 May 2016 14:06:11 +1000, James <james.e...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 21/05/16 10:59, John B. wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm not sure what sort of pot you are using but I was using a sort of
>> electrical heated wok - because I found one that was cheap - and I was
>> doing what I believe you were doing. Wipe the crud off and throw it in
>> the pot.
>>
>> Anyway, as my pot was a wok if you dropped it when it was cold the wax
>> fell out easily and I noticed that the bottom portion of the wax was
>> turning a dirty black while the upper portion remained wax colored. I
>> suspect that the hot wax is acting as a sort of solvent and actually
>> cleaning the chain as well as lubricating it.
>>
>> As for hot wax softening chains... isn't science wonderful :-)
>>
>
>I have suspected that the hot wax allows the external dirt to fall off
>in the pot. One day I might examine what has collected in the bottom of
>the wax pot.

It is somewhat eye opening. I used to wipe the chain with a kerosene
wet rag to get the outside gorp off and then drop it in the molten wax
and leave it there for a while, the theory was to let the chain warm
up to wax temperature for maximum penetration.

>I had a cheap quick link break one day. Luckily I was nearly right
>outside a bike shop. I went in and bought a new quick link. Anyhow, at
>the time my chain was a bit oily and black. One bicycle mechanic
>commented that the old quick link broke because I used oil, and not
>expensive bicycle chain lube. The future brains trust!

I think that I posted some "research" I did on "quick links" and if
you are running 10 or 11 speeds I believe that all available quick
links require a tool to install them. Which sort of makes them a bit
redundant out on the road :-)

Re Oil cause link failure. I an, perhaps not continually, but
certainly frequently, surprised at what I hear people say.

The "Scientific American" published a study on what Usians believed
about current events and they reckoned that from 1/3 to 1/2 half of
Usians really do not know what they are talking about.

My guess is that these figures are probably accurate for most
countries.
--
cheers,

John B.

[Andre Jute]

On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 8:07:14 AM UTC+1, sms wrote:
>
> I think I have the same general goal as Andre, to reduce bicycle chain
> service to zero, but I am not willing to make the compromises he has
> made to achieve that goal, so I'm willing to reduce bicycle chain
> service to near zero, without making any compromises.

I don't know what these "compromises" are that you speak of. For running the chain in an enclosure I have clean trousers-legs, and of course it goes without saying that I cycle in my street clothes, which can be anything from khakis to pinstripes. Also, the desire for an enclosure originally led me to hub gears, so I can do without the pernicious derailleurs. For running the chain for its total service life on its factory lube inside the enclosure, I get zero chain maintenance. Between the two items, probably helped by switching to a better quality of chain (I went from Shimano Nexus to KMC X8) I increased chain life on my bikes by 3x.

I don't see any compromises: that's a multiple win-win scenario.

Andre Jute
The thinking woman's pinup

[Andre Jute]

On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 5:06:17 AM UTC+1, James wrote:

> I have suspected that the hot wax allows the external dirt to fall off
> in the pot. One day I might examine what has collected in the bottom of
> the wax pot.

I dunno about hot wax; I've never tried it. But cold wax, as in White Lightning, which I used for a while inside a big ole Dutch chain case, drops off little grey balls of wax and ground-up aliminium into th beottom of the chain case.

Andre Jute
All cats are not black in the dark

[jbeattie]

Compromise is not quite the right word. Most of us, however, do not have the option of running a chaincase -- mostly because we don't use IGH. And if I were to opt for an IGH commuter, it probably would be belt drive. And if I were to opt for an IGH cross or mountain bike, there is no way I would use a chaincase.

A chaincase is not in my future. It was in my past, though. http://www.schwinnbikeforum.com/SLDB/Images/Consumer/1966/66ccpg16.jpg Along with the stick shift.


-- Jay Beattie.

[James]

On 23/05/16 19:40, John B. wrote:
> On Mon, 23 May 2016 14:06:11 +1000, James <james.e...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 21/05/16 10:59, John B. wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what sort of pot you are using but I was using a sort of
>>> electrical heated wok - because I found one that was cheap - and I was
>>> doing what I believe you were doing. Wipe the crud off and throw it in
>>> the pot.
>>>
>>> Anyway, as my pot was a wok if you dropped it when it was cold the wax
>>> fell out easily and I noticed that the bottom portion of the wax was
>>> turning a dirty black while the upper portion remained wax colored. I
>>> suspect that the hot wax is acting as a sort of solvent and actually
>>> cleaning the chain as well as lubricating it.
>>>
>>> As for hot wax softening chains... isn't science wonderful :-)
>>>
>>
>> I have suspected that the hot wax allows the external dirt to fall off
>> in the pot. One day I might examine what has collected in the bottom of
>> the wax pot.
>
> It is somewhat eye opening. I used to wipe the chain with a kerosene
> wet rag to get the outside gorp off and then drop it in the molten wax
> and leave it there for a while, the theory was to let the chain warm
> up to wax temperature for maximum penetration.
>

Yes, I leave it in there for a while (10 minutes maybe) so that the
chain is practically the same temperature as the liquid wax. I may even
stir it a little, but no garlic or other garnishes as Jay does.

>> I had a cheap quick link break one day. Luckily I was nearly right
>> outside a bike shop. I went in and bought a new quick link. Anyhow, at
>> the time my chain was a bit oily and black. One bicycle mechanic
>> commented that the old quick link broke because I used oil, and not
>> expensive bicycle chain lube. The future brains trust!
>
> I think that I posted some "research" I did on "quick links" and if
> you are running 10 or 11 speeds I believe that all available quick
> links require a tool to install them. Which sort of makes them a bit
> redundant out on the road :-)
>

Connex quick links certainly do not require any tools to remove or
install. (I guess if the chain is choked with gunk, you might need to
remove the gunk around the quick link before removal. I don't get that
much gunk on my chain though.)

> Re Oil cause link failure. I an, perhaps not continually, but
> certainly frequently, surprised at what I hear people say.
>
> The "Scientific American" published a study on what Usians believed
> about current events and they reckoned that from 1/3 to 1/2 half of
> Usians really do not know what they are talking about.
>
> My guess is that these figures are probably accurate for most
> countries.
>

Vivid imaginations.

--
JS

[James]

On 23/05/16 19:40, John B. wrote:

> I think that I posted some "research" I did on "quick links" and if
> you are running 10 or 11 speeds I believe that all available quick
> links require a tool to install them. Which sort of makes them a bit
> redundant out on the road :-)

For your viewing pleasure. This is what I use.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kWxnLBmNPs

--
JS

[Andre Jute]

On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 8:27:10 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
> On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 11:36:41 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> > On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 8:07:14 AM UTC+1, sms wrote:
> > >
> > > I think I have the same general goal as Andre, to reduce bicycle chain
> > > service to zero, but I am not willing to make the compromises he has
> > > made to achieve that goal, so I'm willing to reduce bicycle chain
> > > service to near zero, without making any compromises.
> >
> > I don't know what these "compromises" are that you speak of. For running the chain in an enclosure I have clean trousers-legs, and of course it goes without saying that I cycle in my street clothes, which can be anything from khakis to pinstripes. Also, the desire for an enclosure originally led me to hub gears, so I can do without the pernicious derailleurs. For running the chain for its total service life on its factory lube inside the enclosure, I get zero chain maintenance. Between the two items, probably helped by switching to a better quality of chain (I went from Shimano Nexus to KMC X8) I increased chain life on my bikes by 3x.
> >
> > I don't see any compromises: that's a multiple win-win scenario.
>
> Compromise is not quite the right word. Most of us, however, do not have the option of running a chaincase -- mostly because we don't use IGH. And if I were to opt for an IGH commuter, it probably would be belt drive. And if I were to opt for an IGH cross or mountain bike, there is no way I would use a chaincase.

Actually, the Hebie Chainglider I use, which is the only chain case which, after studying the field and owning all the major contenders, I can recommend, isn't really a chain case. It isn't even enclosed. It's just a strip of rubber that fils all the around the outside of the chain and around the outside of the chainring, and hardly makes it bigger. I suspect that it will not be any more likely to be hooked on something on a cross or mountain bike than a bare chain. (Can't say the same for Dutch type chain cases -- I broke one of those on a sidewalk, riding up to park my bike, and giving way to a fat lady; I must have hit the tree I intended locking my bike to, though I'm not sure as I didn't notice the damage until I got home.)

See a Chainglider here: http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=6813.msg83103#msg83103

> A chaincase is not in my future. It was in my past, though. http://www.schwinnbikeforum.com/SLDB/Images/Consumer/1966/66ccpg16.jpg Along with the stick shift.

Hallelujah! A perfectly respectable juvenile passion.

Andre Jute
Topological interference field

[John B.]

On Mon, 23 May 2016 00:07:06 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 5/22/2016 9:06 PM, James wrote:
>> On 21/05/16 10:59, John B. wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what sort of pot you are using but I was using a sort of
>>> electrical heated wok - because I found one that was cheap - and I was
>>> doing what I believe you were doing. Wipe the crud off and throw it in
>>> the pot.
>>>
>>> Anyway, as my pot was a wok if you dropped it when it was cold the wax
>>> fell out easily and I noticed that the bottom portion of the wax was
>>> turning a dirty black while the upper portion remained wax colored. I
>>> suspect that the hot wax is acting as a sort of solvent and actually
>>> cleaning the chain as well as lubricating it.
>>>
>>> As for hot wax softening chains... isn't science wonderful :-)
>>>
>>
>> I have suspected that the hot wax allows the external dirt to fall off
>> in the pot. One day I might examine what has collected in the bottom of
>> the wax pot.
>>
>> I had a cheap quick link break one day. Luckily I was nearly right
>> outside a bike shop. I went in and bought a new quick link. Anyhow, at
>> the time my chain was a bit oily and black. One bicycle mechanic
>> commented that the old quick link broke because I used oil, and not
>> expensive bicycle chain lube. The future brains trust!
>
>Everyone agrees that wax alone should not be used as a chain "lubricant"
>and that oil must be added.
>

"Every one agrees"? Who everyone? And how would you know? Have you
conducted a proper study? Do you know someone who has conducted a
proper study? Oh yes, you say that you talked to a guy that used
to....

I must say Sir, that your references are impeccable, "A guy that used
to".

Try reading some thoughts from people that actually did try:

I "must admit that I was as surprised at the results as anybody. I
never would have guessed that paraffin would outperform everything"
http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/02/bikes-and-tech/technical-faq/technical-faq-wax-chain-lube-really-what-now_274534

or referring to the velonews test:
The Winner of their test was a very old school lube, in fact its not
even a lube, its a solid at room temperature, paraffin wax. Paraffin
wax was not only the most efficient lube they tested but it also was
the cleanest, it actually even got more efficient when they tested the
chain dirty.
https://barndoorcycling.wordpress.com/2013/02/16/paraffin-wax-chain-lube/

or,
If you want to use paraffin wax,
Make sure you melt the wax in a double boiler! Failure to do so can
lead to a fire. You can use a coffee can in a pan of boiling water if
you don't want to mess up good cookware.
After the wax has melted, put the chain in the wax and simmer for 10
minutes or so. Remove the chain, hang it up, and wipe the excess wax
off. Let it cool and reinstall on your bike.
http://www.slowtwitch.com/mainheadings/techctr/maintenance/chain.html

The recipe- for the Ultrafast chain lube is surprisingly simple. 1 lb
of household paraffin, 5 gm of PTFE, 1 gm of molybdenum disulfide.
http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/article/friction-facts-publishes-ultrafast-chain-lube-formula-36424/

However, I must compliment you in persevering so fervently to follow
Samuel Langhorne Clemens' advice:

"To succeed in life, you need two things: ignorance and confidence.
--
cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

Nice quote, very appropriate!

Then there's this old article from _Bike World_ that found paraffin beat
all other lubes tested in real-world riding:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/16972296@N08/shares/qq2cb6

Incidentally, all the above articles accept the newer test results of
higher efficiency. Those that mention the much cleaner chain like that
aspect too. Their only complaint is the crock pot procedure, involving
removing the chain and submerging it in the pot.

But I get extremely good results by leaving the chain on the bike and
heating about ten links at a time with a propane torch on low flame.

YMMV, of course. I don't want to interfere with anyone's religious
chain beliefs. Just their proselytizing.
--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Tue, 24 May 2016 07:45:54 +1000, James <james.e...@gmail.com>

Is that a link for a 10 or 11 speed chain? It has been a while but
when I looked at "quick links", of whatever name, I found that 9 speed
links were made in two models "use once" and "re-usable" but that 10
and 11 speed links were all "one use only" and required a took to
install or remove them.

It is of some interest as I do carry hand removable links in the "tool
kit" but had stopped carrying them on the 10 speed bike as I didn't
have room for the special pliers.

>> Re Oil cause link failure. I an, perhaps not continually, but
>> certainly frequently, surprised at what I hear people say.
>>
>> The "Scientific American" published a study on what Usians believed
>> about current events and they reckoned that from 1/3 to 1/2 half of
>> Usians really do not know what they are talking about.
>>
>> My guess is that these figures are probably accurate for most
>> countries.
>>
>
>Vivid imaginations.
--

cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Tue, 24 May 2016 07:49:12 +1000, James <james.e...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Thanks for that. Now to find Whipperman links :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

[James]

I added a good lump of black moly grease to my wax/oil mix. When I
first tried almost pure wax, the chain gave that dry chain sound soon
after waxing, and would start to squeak within a week or two of riding.
I've added a considerable amount of oil now, that the wax is almost
soft at temperatures above 35C. Consequently the chain doesn't sound
dry or start to squeak - however dirt doesn't cling to it and become a
crud coating.

So, maybe pure wax with a pinch of PTFE, etc., yields the least
friction, but for me it didn't last long enough.

--
JS

[James]

On 24/05/16 12:21, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2016 07:45:54 +1000, James <james.e...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>

>>
>> Connex quick links certainly do not require any tools to remove or
>> install. (I guess if the chain is choked with gunk, you might need to
>> remove the gunk around the quick link before removal. I don't get that
>> much gunk on my chain though.)
>
> Is that a link for a 10 or 11 speed chain? It has been a while but
> when I looked at "quick links", of whatever name, I found that 9 speed
> links were made in two models "use once" and "re-usable" but that 10
> and 11 speed links were all "one use only" and required a took to
> install or remove them.
>
> It is of some interest as I do carry hand removable links in the "tool
> kit" but had stopped carrying them on the 10 speed bike as I didn't
> have room for the special pliers.
>
>

I use 10 speed gear. The SRAM quick link may require a long nose plier
to undo, and I hear it is supposedly a one use only link. However I've
reused the one I bought in an emergency when I snapped a cheap one - by
oiling allegedly, and the link seems to work fine to me.

I've reused Connex quick links many times, and they do not require a
tool to remove or install.

--
JS

[Frank Krygowski]

I suppose I could try adding a pinch of PTFE as well as the oil. But
I've got enough wax+oil already blended to last me the rest of my
cycling career, and it works plenty well enough for me.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

I think it is possible that the emersion system may be, at least
theoretically, better as it certainly resulted in a lot of ugly black
stuff in the bottom of my wax pot. And, as I said, I did wipe off the
exterior of the chain with a solvent soaked rag.

But on the other hand, any lube is better then no lube :-)

Probably any wiping off the exterior crud and slobbering on some sort
of lube is better then what the commonality do :-)

--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Tue, 24 May 2016 16:49:00 +1000, James <james.e...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Yes. After I posted my last remarks I went and looked up Connex 10
speed links and they specifically say that they can be installed and
removed by hand.... now if someone would just import then over here.

I've got a couple of 9 speed links that are "hand opening" that I keep
on my 9 speed bike but all of the 10 - 11 speed links that I see in
the shops now days are Chinese single use links. Which, I might add
are cheaper, which is probably why the shops stock them.
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Tue, 24 May 2016 15:44:18 +1000, James <james.e...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I initially tried pure paraffin and it seemed kind of hard and brittle
so I went to a paraffin - bee's wax mix which was softer and "sticky"
I thought and finally to a paraffin - bee's wax - molybdenum disulfide
mix that seemed better although I never went to any lengths to test
it.
--
cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

Actually, I agree that total immersion probably is better. Just like
baptism!

But for me, this non-immersion method gives plenty of chain life, a very
clean chain and bike, and takes less time. It's good enough to get the
job done, I think. (Just like baptism!)


--
- Frank Krygowski

[bob prohaska]

Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Weight? Cost? Residual cleaning requirements of the chain? Cleaning requirements of the cogs?
>

Sealed chains need negligible cleaning, none at all if you don't mind visible rust.

I suspect the impediments to o-ring chain on bicycles are two: The side plates would have to
be thinner, to make room for the seals keeping the overall width of the chain the same. Also,
there might be some difficulty with chain deflection on derailer setups, as the compliance
of the seals will be limited by their relatively thin profile. It's a completely new production
process, at least in normal bicycle sizes.

After reading the follow-on discussion of lubing chains the most important impediment to building
a truly maintenance-free chain system is the riders themselves. They seem to _enjoy_ cleaning and
lubricating chains 8-)

Maybe the best compromise is a clamshell chain housing, that splits into a top and bottom half.
The bottom half could be made oil-tight if desired, with the top half deflecting drips and
splash back into the bottom. It could be wide enough to enclose the derailer entirely with
an oil bath in the bottom and a small mud sump. One would never clean the chain, just scoop
the sediment out of the sump and add fresh oil.

For an OEM product fitted to a particular frame/derailer combination it wouldn't cost or weigh
much, but purists would doubtless object to the appearance. Aftermarket would be much harder,
with a huge tooling cost to fit all the combinations of width, shape and depth required for a
reasonably neat fit.

Thanks for reading,

bob prohaska

[Andre Jute]

On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 3:55:45 AM UTC+1, bob prohaska wrote:

A. If you search for "chainglider" on the Thorn forum http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk, you will find
a) a complete overview of available, including rare, chain cases by me in several articles
and
b) much experience by me and others, spread across many threads, of the only chain case I recommend, the Hebie Chainglider, which isn't a chaincase at all but just a close-fitting hard rubber channel around the chain and chainring plus a sprocket enclosure.

B. A determined effort was recently made to develop a chaincase for derailleur bikes and the Flowline was marketed by Gazelle, a huge and determined bicycle marketer in Europe; it's already off the market again. See the photo in the article and especially the comments, including some from its fans, at http://coolmainpress.com/ajwriting/tuning-out-chain-stretch-on-internal-hub-bicycles-fixies-single-speed-and-derailleur-bikes-by-andre-jute/

C. I doubt your sealed bicycle chain would work with derailleur bikes for which chains must have considerable sideways articulation. There just isn't the width to spare on modern 9-speed chains, never mind the 10- and 11-speeds.

D. Your chaincase idea is far too complicated, heavy and bothersome, and anyhow the luddites won't want it; even the Dutch found the Flowline too much bother. In any event, your idea is not much different from Dutch metal chain cases on bikes from before WWII. I have several of those copied in plastic on Dutch city bikes and they're deservedly obsolete.

Andre Jute
Laterally yours

[Tosspot]

Where's over here? Available on Leftpondia Amazon.

[John B.]

In my, admittedly limited, experience pure paraffin was not as
successful as a paraffin - bee's wax mix that the paraffin-bee's
wax-molybdenum disulfide was the best I tried.

Here, at least, bee's wax is several times as expensive as paraffin.
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Tue, 24 May 2016 21:40:36 -0400, Frank Krygowski

My own thoughts are that practically any form of lubrication is better
then no lubrication and that the average bicycle chain is probably
operating in very hostile conditions. so, I suggest, any periodic
chain care is likely to prove beneficial.

I suspect that if wax is melted to its maximum temperature before
catching fire and is of the approximate consistency of water it
probably penetrates the chain as well as any fluid and I suspect that
a wax trapped inside a chain link probably provides perfectly
satisfactory lubrication and it certainly doesn't slough off as
quickly as a more fluid substance. As for it's lubricating properties
it was used for years on skis and toboggans, it is used in lead
bullet lubricants and also a part of various other lubricants.

I certainly didn't stop using it because I doubted its qualities. I
just found what I thought was an easier way of doing things :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Wed, 25 May 2016 07:26:00 +0200, Tosspot <Frank...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Bangkok. Yup. $13.27 plus $14.14 shipping and import duty - likely 10%
if by Mail. If by courier like DHL then more, as they add a handling
fee. So about $30.00 each. I can buy 10 speed links here for about
5.00 each, although they do require a special tool to open or close
one. But the tool only costs $10.00. So, a tool and 4 links versus one
link?

>
>> I've got a couple of 9 speed links that are "hand opening" that I keep
>> on my 9 speed bike but all of the 10 - 11 speed links that I see in
>> the shops now days are Chinese single use links. Which, I might add
>> are cheaper, which is probably why the shops stock them.
>>

--
cheers,

John B.

[sms]

On 5/24/2016 7:52 PM, bob prohaska wrote:
> Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Weight? Cost? Residual cleaning requirements of the chain? Cleaning requirements of the cogs?
>>
>
> Sealed chains need negligible cleaning, none at all if you don't mind visible rust.
>
> I suspect the impediments to o-ring chain on bicycles are two: The side plates would have to
> be thinner, to make room for the seals keeping the overall width of the chain the same. Also,
> there might be some difficulty with chain deflection on derailer setups, as the compliance
> of the seals will be limited by their relatively thin profile. It's a completely new production
> process, at least in normal bicycle sizes.

Motorcycle chains are much wider, plus for larger motorcycles they don't
use 1/2" pitch chains. But it's true that for non-derailleur setups an
O-ring chain would have advantages. Though you still have to lube them.
The lubes for O-ring chains are different since they have to penetrate
past the O ring.

> After reading the follow-on discussion of lubing chains the most important impediment to building
> a truly maintenance-free chain system is the riders themselves. They seem to _enjoy_ cleaning and
> lubricating chains 8-)

Exactly. I coined the phrase "recreational chain maintenance." It's like
people that like changing their vehicle's motor oil way more often than
beneficial. It's not about doing what's best for the bicycle or car,
it's what makes the owner feel good.

> Maybe the best compromise is a clamshell chain housing, that splits into a top and bottom half.
> The bottom half could be made oil-tight if desired, with the top half deflecting drips and
> splash back into the bottom. It could be wide enough to enclose the derailer entirely with
> an oil bath in the bottom and a small mud sump. One would never clean the chain, just scoop
> the sediment out of the sump and add fresh oil.
>
> For an OEM product fitted to a particular frame/derailer combination it wouldn't cost or weigh
> much, but purists would doubtless object to the appearance. Aftermarket would be much harder,
> with a huge tooling cost to fit all the combinations of width, shape and depth required for a
> reasonably neat fit.

Do a Kickstarter. Well don't do one. It'll be as successful as the
traffic light loop thing.

[John B.]

On Wed, 25 May 2016 21:30:23 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:

>sms <scharf...@geemail.com> considered Wed, 25 May 2016 08:00:19

>-0700 the perfect time to write:
>
>>On 5/24/2016 7:52 PM, bob prohaska wrote:
>>> Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Weight? Cost? Residual cleaning requirements of the chain? Cleaning requirements of the cogs?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sealed chains need negligible cleaning, none at all if you don't mind visible rust.
>>>
>>> I suspect the impediments to o-ring chain on bicycles are two: The side plates would have to
>>> be thinner, to make room for the seals keeping the overall width of the chain the same. Also,
>>> there might be some difficulty with chain deflection on derailer setups, as the compliance
>>> of the seals will be limited by their relatively thin profile. It's a completely new production
>>> process, at least in normal bicycle sizes.
>>
>>Motorcycle chains are much wider, plus for larger motorcycles they don't
>>use 1/2" pitch chains. But it's true that for non-derailleur setups an
>>O-ring chain would have advantages. Though you still have to lube them.
>>The lubes for O-ring chains are different since they have to penetrate
>>past the O ring.
>

>I know you enjoy looking stupid, but it is annoying that you spew
>quite so much misinformation.
>The ONLY difference between lubricants for O-ring chains and
>non-O-ring chains is that if you are going to use it on an O-ring
>chain, some solvents cannot be used because they damage to O-ring.
>That is the ONLY difference - and O-ring suitable lubricant can be
>used perfectly well on ANY chain, but not always the other way around.
>And if any lubricant can get past the O-rings, they are toast, and the
>chain has become a normal chain with a sloppy fit between sideplates!
>
>The fact that larger motorcycles use more than 1/2" pitch is
>irrelevant - it would be ridiculous to use a chain intended for use on
>such machines on a bicycle.

As, I believe I have already pointed out, O-ring sealed chain in 1/2"
pitch is available, "off the shelf", "sealed for life", chain. It is
DIN 08B-1, 1/2" pitch and 5/16" width.

While this chain is certainly not going to work with a conventional
derailer system it would certainly work with a geared rear hub.

Strange that those arguing the merits of an "O-ring" sealed chain
aren't already using one.

--
cheers,

John B.

[bob prohaska]

John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> wrote:

> Strange that those arguing the merits of an "O-ring" sealed chain
> aren't already using one.

I'm using them, just not on bicycles 8-) They work remarkably well.
Thus my hope and wonder about adapting them to bicycles.

bob prohaska

[John B.]

I probably should have said, "arguing the merits of an "O-ring" sealed
chain aren't already using one *on their bicycle* :-)

To the best of my knowledge the smallest, standard, 1/2" pitch
O-ringed chain is 3/16" between the side plates, and use a solid pin
as the link pivot so that they will be less flexible then modern
"bushing less" derailer chains, although it might work on a single
speed system which could have a 1/8" chain.

I did a small amount of search for "friction losses" and apparently
there are measurable higher friction losses in O or X-ring chains but
the numbers I see are all for motorcycles and I'm not sure how well
they would translate to a system with a 1/2 HP power plant.

But apparently friction is of interest as one site says that their
"X-ring chains, "improvement is significant, with some manufacturers
claiming a reduction of up to 40% in friction over O-ring sealed
chains".

While an "O"-ring chain maker says, "O-ring chain has friction in
bending. However, the power loss is almost negligible, since the
frictional force acting between the pins and bushing when a load
acting on the chain is greater.

(I guess the X-ring guy is going for 40% of "negligible :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

[avag...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 9:00:56 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
> On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 4:30:47 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> > Gentlemen, far be it from me to point out your perpetual shortfall of concentration and inability to stick to the subject, but just a gentle reminder that this thread is about reducing chain service, preferably to nil (as I have already achieved), not a place to brag about how many years of your life you have wasted flossing your chain*.
> >
> > Andre Jute
> > Time is final frontier
> >
>
> I just ignore mine. Problem solved.
>
> Well, I do spray it now and then and put the chain-checker on it, but no flossing.
>
> -- Jay Beattie.

excellent example of road dirt relative to rainfall and soil hardness/quality

https://www.google.com/#q=portland+oregon+soil+type

[John B.]

On Fri, 27 May 2016 20:21:37 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:

>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> considered Fri, 27 May 2016 15:32:50

>What may be "negligible" on a >60bhp motorcycle is going to be
>anything but on a <0.5bhp pedal cycle though, particularly once you
>allow for small rear sprockets where chain flex is greater.
>
>Even on motorcycles, I've never seen O-ring (or other shaped seals) on
>very small motorcycles (<150cc) or on any racing motorcycle, so the
>additional friction obviously is significant enough to matter in those
>applications.

I did read a comparison of sealed and unsealed chains on motorcycles,
which involved a series of quarter mile acceleration runs, which
showed that the non-sealed chain was marginally faster, but no lab
tests to pin down exactly what the friction loss actually was.

>Still, I suppose it may still be more efficient that shaft drive,
>although that seems to me to be "damning with faint praise".

I suspect that a bicycle chain is very low down on the "recommended
chain use" scale and given the parameters - light, flexible, strong
(enough) - it is likely the best that can be done with what is
available.
--
cheers,

John B.

[bob prohaska]

John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> wrote:
>
> To the best of my knowledge the smallest, standard, 1/2" pitch
> O-ringed chain is 3/16" between the side plates, and use a solid pin
> as the link pivot so that they will be less flexible then modern
> "bushing less" derailer chains, although it might work on a single
> speed system which could have a 1/8" chain.
>

Could you post a link (no pun intended) for the source of such a chain?
I've got a Breezer Uptown 8 that does not need a chain right now but
might be a good platform to experiment with. My own searches for small
sealed chain didn't turn up anything promising.

> I did a small amount of search for "friction losses" and apparently
> there are measurable higher friction losses in O or X-ring chains but
> the numbers I see are all for motorcycles and I'm not sure how well
> they would translate to a system with a 1/2 HP power plant.
>

O-ring chain for motorcycles is noticeably stiff in the hand when new
but limbers up with age. However, it's _huge_ chain by bicycle standards,
I'm not sure the comparison is relevant.

> But apparently friction is of interest as one site says that their
> "X-ring chains, "improvement is significant, with some manufacturers
> claiming a reduction of up to 40% in friction over O-ring sealed
> chains".
>

Probably marketing hype mostly, though under some conditions heat might
be an issue; chains do get warm when worked hard and added heat can't
be helpful, to seals or lube. On a bicycle one should compare the friction
of a sealed chain to an unlubricated chain, which is the prevailing condition.
In that case the tradeoff might not be so bad.

The biggest hurdle to sealed chain on bicycles is risk: A manufacturer
would have to design the chain, the tooling and the marketing. Given
the comments on this newsgroup I think the last problem is the hardest.

If I could find a sealed chain to fit the Breezer that does not cost an
arm and a leg I'd be tempted to give it a try, in the interest of science.

Thanks for reading!

bob prohaska

[Andre Jute]

Donga.

Andre Jute
Inscrutable

[John B.]

On Sat, 28 May 2016 02:24:32 -0000 (UTC), bob prohaska
<b...@www.zefox.net> wrote:

>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> wrote:
>>
>> To the best of my knowledge the smallest, standard, 1/2" pitch
>> O-ringed chain is 3/16" between the side plates, and use a solid pin
>> as the link pivot so that they will be less flexible then modern
>> "bushing less" derailer chains, although it might work on a single
>> speed system which could have a 1/8" chain.
>>
>Could you post a link (no pun intended) for the source of such a chain?
>I've got a Breezer Uptown 8 that does not need a chain right now but
>might be a good platform to experiment with. My own searches for small
>sealed chain didn't turn up anything promising.

Try Lube Free.
http://www.lubefreechain.com/sealed-for-life-chain/what-is-seal-for-life-roller-chain
and go from there, as obviously they make sealed chain :-)

>> I did a small amount of search for "friction losses" and apparently
>> there are measurable higher friction losses in O or X-ring chains but
>> the numbers I see are all for motorcycles and I'm not sure how well
>> they would translate to a system with a 1/2 HP power plant.
>>
>O-ring chain for motorcycles is noticeably stiff in the hand when new
>but limbers up with age. However, it's _huge_ chain by bicycle standards,
>I'm not sure the comparison is relevant.
>
>> But apparently friction is of interest as one site says that their
>> "X-ring chains, "improvement is significant, with some manufacturers
>> claiming a reduction of up to 40% in friction over O-ring sealed
>> chains".
>>
>Probably marketing hype mostly, though under some conditions heat might
>be an issue; chains do get warm when worked hard and added heat can't
>be helpful, to seals or lube. On a bicycle one should compare the friction
>of a sealed chain to an unlubricated chain, which is the prevailing condition.
>In that case the tradeoff might not be so bad.
>
>The biggest hurdle to sealed chain on bicycles is risk: A manufacturer
>would have to design the chain, the tooling and the marketing. Given
>the comments on this newsgroup I think the last problem is the hardest.

I would think that for a successful product that marketing is likely
the major problem. Coca-Cola's advertising budget for example:
From:
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/081315/look-cocacolas-advertising-expenses.asp
"Coca-Cola has made a yearly commitment to large ad spends, spending a
total $3.499 billion in 2014"

>If I could find a sealed chain to fit the Breezer that does not cost an
>arm and a leg I'd be tempted to give it a try, in the interest of science.
>
>Thanks for reading!
>
>bob prohaska

--
cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

I searched 'O ring moped chain' and this came up first:

http://www.bikebandit.com/aftermarket-parts/motorcycle-wheels-and-final-drive/chains-universal/regina-520-orn6-gold-o-ring-motorcycle-chain

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

[sms]

On 5/27/2016 7:24 PM, bob prohaska wrote:
> John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> wrote:
>>
>> To the best of my knowledge the smallest, standard, 1/2" pitch
>> O-ringed chain is 3/16" between the side plates, and use a solid pin
>> as the link pivot so that they will be less flexible then modern
>> "bushing less" derailer chains, although it might work on a single
>> speed system which could have a 1/8" chain.
>>
> Could you post a link (no pun intended) for the source of such a chain?
> I've got a Breezer Uptown 8 that does not need a chain right now but
> might be a good platform to experiment with. My own searches for small
> sealed chain didn't turn up anything promising.

Very few motorcycle chains are 1/2" anymore. It was older, smaller
motorcycles with those chains. If you fly to Japan you can get this
chain from Amazon: <http://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/B001D2EMLC>

Actually you can order it here:
<http://japan.webike.net/products/1515174.html> but the cost and
shipping are prohibitive.

[John B.]

:-)

I wonder if you would enjoy participate in a survey. The next bloke
that comes into the shop to buy a chain, if you could just say
something like, "Yes Sir! Right here! This is our weekly special on
chains, and only $99.95", and report his reaction :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

[sms]

As John stated, the narrowest O-Ring chain is a 415 at 3/16". There is
no 1/8" O-Ring chain. Not sure it is even practical to build such a thing.

You can see motorcycle chain specs here:
<http://www.yaban.com/upload/en/85/14_file_1.pdf>.

Would a 3/16" width motorcycle chain work on a bicycle that normally
uses a 1/8" width chain? I don't know.

Considering how easy it is to properly maintain a non-O ring bicycle
chain, and the fact that an O ring chain would only work on
non-derailleur bicycles, I don't think you'll see such a thing. Belts
would be used instead.

[bob prohaska]

AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
> I searched 'O ring moped chain' and this came up first:
>
> http://www.bikebandit.com/aftermarket-parts/motorcycle-wheels-and-final-drive/chains-universal/regina-520-orn6-gold-o-ring-motorcycle-chain
>

That's 5/8" pitch and can handle upwards of 100 horsepower.

[Andre Jute]

It's wondrous to behold how much time cyclists will waste speculating about a problem long since solved. Motorcycle chains with O-rings? For a problem long since solved. Gee. And if I didn't run my chain for its entire life inside a Chainglider on its factory lube, no extra service at all, I would get use nice clean zero-service Gates Belt Drive, not some clunky, heavy, non-standard width, dirty chain off a motorbike. That's just about the definition of a retrograde step.

Some people have more time than brains.

Andre Jute
Rational

[John B.]

On Sat, 28 May 2016 18:46:04 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

I don't "know" but I think that it would. I ran a seven speed chain on
a 9 speed cassette for an hour or so. I don't remember whether it
shifted but if I stayed in a single gear it seemed to be all right.

>Considering how easy it is to properly maintain a non-O ring bicycle
>chain, and the fact that an O ring chain would only work on
>non-derailleur bicycles, I don't think you'll see such a thing. Belts
>would be used instead.

But, I suggest, the price might limit sales to some extent with the
sealed chain that Andrew pointed out costing 90-something dollars and
a brand new KMC 6 - 7 speed chain selling for $8.00.
--
cheers,

John B.

[sms]

So does anyone know if there will be performance issues by using a 3/16"
width chain on single gears designed for 1/8" width? I guess there would
be some side-to-side play when the chain is not under tension.

Still, it's hard to imagine anyone doing this sort of thing due to the
expense and the extra weight. But the inherent disadvantages of belt
drive with regards to frame design, might warrant the development of a
bicycle-specific O-ring chain for non-derailleur bicycles.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 10:32:28 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 3:54:38 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
> >
> > "No matter how well a transmission system is designed, if it is not
> > properly lubricated its service life will be shortened.
> >
> > Incorrect or insufficient lubrication is one of the primary reasons
> > for premature roller chain wear and eventual failure."
>
> Unfortunately, in this case your excruciating talent for the obvious is misdirected and mistaken, Slow Johnny. That may be so in cheap and thoughtless installations. It isn't so in the installation under discussion in this thread in which you presume to lecture us.
>
> You should have checked the link I provided in the first post in this thread and digested the material -- ah, never mind, it wouldn't do a knowitall like you any good. I'll just tell everyone else what you missed:
>
> A bicycle chain from a good manufacturer (KMC, Connex, NOS Rohloff Revolver if you can get one) comes covered in gunk called "factory lube". On hand of deep cogitation on remarks by Sheldon Brown and Jobst Brand, I decided that, if your chain is from a maker who gives good gunk, what is far more important than further lubrication is keeping abrasives (dust, mud, cowshit, dead leaves, rust, energy bar crumbs) out of the chain. So I enclosed my chain and ran it on only the factory lube for its entire life, which turned out NOT to be shorter than a chain run in the same enclosure which received best quality lube (Oil of Rolloff ) every 500 miles. QED: you don't need to lubricate your chain if you run it in a quality enclosure.
>
> Are you taking notes, Slow Johnny?
>
> So now I have a zero maintenance transmission, and it doesn't chew chains either -- in fact, I'm up to near enough 3x the mileage per chain I managed ten years ago when I spent a lot of miserable and expensive hours on maintenance instead of riding or doing something useful and agreeable.
>
> Andre Jute
> Scientific method, not street corner gossip

Andre - you have to admit that there are almost NO American bicycles that have anything like a "quality enclosure" so you shouldn't criticize long term experience of so many people that have changed out so many chains for due cause.

I have every reason to believe you but I also have thrown out many chains worn beyond use after 3,000 miles.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 12:07:14 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
> On 5/22/2016 9:06 PM, James wrote:
> > On 21/05/16 10:59, John B. wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I'm not sure what sort of pot you are using but I was using a sort of
> >> electrical heated wok - because I found one that was cheap - and I was
> >> doing what I believe you were doing. Wipe the crud off and throw it in
> >> the pot.
> >>
> >> Anyway, as my pot was a wok if you dropped it when it was cold the wax
> >> fell out easily and I noticed that the bottom portion of the wax was
> >> turning a dirty black while the upper portion remained wax colored. I
> >> suspect that the hot wax is acting as a sort of solvent and actually
> >> cleaning the chain as well as lubricating it.
> >>
> >> As for hot wax softening chains... isn't science wonderful :-)
> >>
> >
> > I have suspected that the hot wax allows the external dirt to fall off
> > in the pot. One day I might examine what has collected in the bottom of
> > the wax pot.
> >
> > I had a cheap quick link break one day. Luckily I was nearly right
> > outside a bike shop. I went in and bought a new quick link. Anyhow, at
> > the time my chain was a bit oily and black. One bicycle mechanic
> > commented that the old quick link broke because I used oil, and not
> > expensive bicycle chain lube. The future brains trust!
>
> Everyone agrees that wax alone should not be used as a chain "lubricant"
> and that oil must be added.
>

> I tried an experiment with paraffin and 30W oil. I had to add a lot of
> oil for there to be enough for the mixture to remain liquid enough for
> it to be able to replenish lubricant. When cold, there were bits of wax
> suspended in the mixture, but they would not have any effect on
> lubricating the chain unless a bit floated over to the pin and roller
> for a brief period of time.
>
> If hot waxing is a necessity, then add enough oil to actually provide
> lubrication between wax/oil changes. Since the purpose of waxing chains
> was to eliminate wet lubricant attracting dirt, mixing the wax with oil
> is not really achieving the goal anymore, though perhaps it's more about
> the cleaning process where when heating a dirty chain the dirty oil gets
> carried out by the hot wax, rather than by being carried out by kerosene
> or other solvent.
>
> I think I have the same general goal as Andre, to reduce bicycle chain
> service to zero, but I am not willing to make the compromises he has
> made to achieve that goal, so I'm willing to reduce bicycle chain
> service to near zero, without making any compromises.
>
> I met a guy at Tech Shop in San Jose who used to work for a bicycle
> shop, and his shop had designed a chain maintenance system for bikes
> brought in for service. They used a modified chain cleaning tool that
> was able to circulate clean solvent into the tool using a small pump
> while another pump pumped out the dirty solvent (it is not a pressurized
> system so you have to have two pumps, one pumping in fresh solvent and
> one pumping out dirty solvent. I think it was similar to this system:
> <http://www.chainlubersystems.com/>. The problem with most chain
> cleaning tools is that you have to remove and replace the solvent
> several times to get a clean chain. It's less messy if you can add and
> remove solvent without taking the device off the chain. Also, the tool
> in that video is used for both cleaning and lubricating. I had two of
> the chain cleaning tools, one for cleaning, one for lubing, until I
> switched over to using foaming chain lubricant for lubrication, as
> suggested by Jobst.

The problem with that is that it is a great deal of work and you can buy a lifetime's supply of chains for the cost of the cleaning system.

[Andre Jute]

There were none here when I started my enclosure experiments in 2002, there were still none here in 2009 when I concluded my enclosure experiments and moved on to my zero-lube experiments. There are still none but mine.

I order the components from Germany, several countries and two seas away. So can anybody else who care to put their minds in gear.

>so you shouldn't criticize long term experience of so many people that have changed out so many chains for due cause.

I'm not criticising their experience. I'm criticising their lack of thought and their stubborn, luddite, adherence to "traditional ways". I'm criticising the foul manneers of people like Slow Johnny Slocomb who brag that they don't read me but who insist on fouling my thread with their smug stupidities.

Look at this thread. The vast majority of messages are about retrograde methods, and speculation on how to make them more retrograde.

> I have every reason to believe you

Of course you do; everyone with the brains in his head to follow what I say does. It's only the slimier provincial thickoes (Krygowski, Slocomb, Howard, etc) who insist that anything that didn't originate on their little streetcorner must be a lie.

>but I also have thrown out many chains worn beyond use after 3,000 miles.

Sure. So did I. It was irritation with Shimano's Nexus chains, which seemed designed to wear out in a thousand miles, that set me to investigating what could be done.

Andre Jute
A little, a very litte thought will suffice. -- John Maynard Keynes

[Andre Jute]

The chain is also the cheapest component on the bike (I pay about 14 euro for each of my KMC X8-93 delivered to my door), and logically should therefore be the component to sacrifice first in any conflict. But you mustn't expect logic to cut any ice with those who get a mystical psychic charge from chain maintenance.

Andre Jute
Perhaps time just hangs heavy on their hands

[John B.]

On Sun, 29 May 2016 22:37:01 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:

>AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> considered Sat, 28 May 2016 06:57:44 -0500

>the perfect time to write:
>

>But that is 520 size (5/8th" pitch), so won't fit bicycle sprockets.
>The first number in the chain size is the number of eighths of an inch
>in pitch, so we are trying to find a 400 series chain.
>Ideally, it needs to be as narrow as possible - we certainly can't get
>3/32", 1/8" would be 410, so great for single sprockets, but I can't
>find it in any sealed design, so our next best would be 415 (3/16ths"
>inner width), although 420 (1/4" inner width) would be ok, although an
>even more sloppy fit on the sprockets.
>As the sideplates are thicker (typically 1.5-2.0mm on 420 chains) on
>motorcycle or general use chains than those for bicycles, and a seal
>adds even more width, none would work on derailer gears unless they
>too were redesigned to handle that width.
>
>This one should fit a bicycle with internally geared hub/bottom
>bracket, although a bit loose, side to side:
>http://www.coatesmotorcycles.com/ek-415-sh-motorcycle-chain-5018.html
>and it's only fifteen pounds (UK) so might be worth a try for anyone
>who really wants to experiment.

In rebuilding an older 7 speed bike I replaced the rear wheel with one
having a 9 speed cassette and rode the bike for about an hour as a
single speed - I just didn't shift. I just measured the 7 speed chain
as 0.175" between the side plates and a 9 speed cog as 0.074" in
thickness, so a difference of ~ 0.100 (~7/64") shouldn't prove a
problem.

As for a sealed link "derailer" chain I suggest that the necessary
construction of a sealed chain would likely make it too stiff,
laterally, to work well.
--
cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

On 5/29/2016 4:37 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
> AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> considered Sat, 28 May 2016 06:57:44 -0500

> the perfect time to write:
>

> But that is 520 size (5/8th" pitch), so won't fit bicycle sprockets.
> The first number in the chain size is the number of eighths of an inch
> in pitch, so we are trying to find a 400 series chain.
> Ideally, it needs to be as narrow as possible - we certainly can't get
> 3/32", 1/8" would be 410, so great for single sprockets, but I can't
> find it in any sealed design, so our next best would be 415 (3/16ths"
> inner width), although 420 (1/4" inner width) would be ok, although an
> even more sloppy fit on the sprockets.
> As the sideplates are thicker (typically 1.5-2.0mm on 420 chains) on
> motorcycle or general use chains than those for bicycles, and a seal
> adds even more width, none would work on derailer gears unless they
> too were redesigned to handle that width.
>
> This one should fit a bicycle with internally geared hub/bottom
> bracket, although a bit loose, side to side:
> http://www.coatesmotorcycles.com/ek-415-sh-motorcycle-chain-5018.html
> and it's only fifteen pounds (UK) so might be worth a try for anyone
> who really wants to experiment.
>

Thank you. Didn't know that.

[sms]

On 5/29/2016 12:12 PM, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> The problem with that is that it is a great deal of work and you can buy a lifetime's supply of chains for the cost of the cleaning system.

I don't think you've priced the chains for 10 or 11 speed systems lately.

[Andre Jute]

Phil W Lee sent this link in reply to a request for an o-ringed bicycle size motorbike chain:

> > This one should fit a bicycle with internally geared hub/bottom
> > bracket, although a bit loose, side to side:
> > http://www.coatesmotorcycles.com/ek-415-sh-motorcycle-chain-5018.html

But EK's SH (motocross) series doesn't appear to be O-ringed, Phil. See for instance the nearest they still list, the 420SH, on page 6 of their catalogue at
http://www.ekchain.jp/product/pdf/cartalog_01.pdf

Andre Jute
Just the fax, mam

[John B.]

On Mon, 30 May 2016 17:28:29 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:

>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> considered Mon, 30 May 2016 08:23:48

>Allegedly, the X-ring chains allow additional sideways flexibility
>compared to O-ring, so might be a possibility, but unless you build
>the wider front cage and rear derailer to attempt it, you aren't
>likely to find out!

I was thinking more of the bend that a derailer system imposes on a
chain on every cassette cog other than the center one. I think that it
would increase friction quite a bit.

--
cheers,

John B.

[sms]

Well, that's a "U Ring" chain, so forget about what I wrote earlier.

From what I saw in my searches, the motorbikes that use the 1/2" chains
don't have much power to spare, and they would not accept the losses
inherent in an O ring chain, even if it were physically possible to
manufacture such a thing at a price that anyone would buy.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Andre - it appears that you are a commuter-type of rider whereas I'm a sport rider. I like the idea of enclosures and zero maintenance but the loss of performance though either drag or increased weight is a problem with my kind of riding.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

There hasn't been any improvements in speed related to the number of speeds on a bike since the 8 speed.

Racers need the flexibility of increased numbers of speeds but sport riders end up shifting two or three gears at a time in these multiple speed bikes. Even on Wednesday when I did a hard climb on my 10 speed CX bike there were really only four gears I used climbing and one on the descent and one on the flats.

And there is a HUGE increase in wear on the drive line components.

The only reason that I've gone to increased numbers of speeds is the lack of spare parts on the 8 speed stuff.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

That does seem likely but tests on derailleur systems in fact show almost no increase in friction even in the end to end tests. That is large to small and small to large. It there is no difference in friction there's no difference in wear rates.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Since the chain on a motorcycle is only between two cogs there actually is no need for a very good seal. The normal chain seals are more than adequate. I can't remember ever wearing out a chain on an off-road bike. And at that time I wasn't all that good at maintenance.

[James]

Cycling around where I live, I'm up and down the cassette and swapping
between chain rings very often. It's very lumpy.

--
JS

[Andre Jute]

The highest speed I reached yesterday was 51kph. Did you go faster than that?

A Rohloff 14 speed complete with all controls weighs only a few grammes more than the complete derrailleur transmission with all controls. What there is though that may concern a very sensitive rider on a twisty course, is a small transfer of weight from the centre of the bike to the rear hub.

A Hebie Chainglider adds no perceptible drag. It doesn't actually "glide" on the chain but is held clear of it by standing off the hub.

[John B.]

Yes, I am aware of that test, but I am also aware of a number of other
tests that show that misalignment does effect friction losses,
although there are more important factors such as chain tension.

In addition, as far as I know, motorcycle, and specifically sealed
chains, are all bushed chains while multi-speed bicycle chains are
bushingless chains that are more flexible, and I suggest that testing
a bushingless chain versus a sealed bushed chain would show
significant differences.
--
cheers,

John B.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 04 Jun 2016 09:09:20 +0700, John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz>
wrote:

Need a project?
<http://www.friction-facts.com/equipment-overview>
<https://www.friction-facts.com/equipment/chain-full-load>
Build something similar and run some tests on both bicycle and
motorcycle chains. It doesn't look too difficult to build, but
methinks calibration might be a problem.
<https://www.friction-facts.com/test-results/individual-reports>

FRICTION FICTION.
The truth behind what really makes for a faster drivetrain.
<http://www.friction-facts.com/media/wysiwyg/LAVA2.pdf>
Lots of interesting reading on friction.

--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[John B.]

On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 19:26:53 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

But why bother. There are innumerable chain tests already published,
there are ISO standards, and at least one US patent issued for a chain
testing machine US4413513 A.

As well, every chain manufacturer I have looked at stated that
alignment was a factor and recommended not more than 0.1mm in 100mm
center to center, for high speed and 0.2 for low speed chains.

As an aside, the Universities of Leeds, Sheffield and York, published
a study: "Lee, P.M. and Priest, M. (2004) An innovation integrated
approach to testing motorcycle drive chain lubricants." which shows
the comparative effectiveness of several alternate chine lubricants.

Interestingly the weight loss due to wear vary considerably. For the
large sprocket a wax spray was most effective with a weight loss of
0.12, PTFE was 0.17, Oil Drip was 0.24 and no lube was 0.40

For the small sprocket Wax was 0.04, PTFE 0.06, Oil drip 0.06 and no
lube 0.27.

For the chain the numbers are Wax 0.13, PTFE 0.22 Oil drip 0.03 and no
lube 0.44.

Overall, it appears that wax is preferable for chain transmission
lubrication.
--
cheers,

John B.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 04 Jun 2016 13:54:57 +0700, John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz>
wrote:

>But why bother. There are innumerable chain tests already published,
>there are ISO standards, and at least one US patent issued for a chain
>testing machine US4413513 A.

I don't believe that there are any test reports on the effectiveness
of using o-ring or x-ring sealed motorcycle chains on a bicycle.
Similarly, most of the tests, including the one's you list, are for
clean chains. If a sealed chain is better, it should show superior
results when filthy.

>As well, every chain manufacturer I have looked at stated that
>alignment was a factor and recommended not more than 0.1mm in 100mm
>center to center, for high speed and 0.2 for low speed chains.

Yep. Then the chain alignment is perfect, the load is distributed
along the width of the pin and bushing. When misaligned, the load is
concentrated on one end of the pin and sleeve. However, that's not
what worn bicycle chain tends to look like:
<http://www.sheldonbrown.com/images/chain_wornpin.gif>
<http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-004/000.html>
<http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-006/000.html>
Note that the pin and bushing wear is roughly even across the width of
the contact area. Therefore, misalignment is a factor in power loss,
due to increased side plate rubbing, but not so much in chain wear.
Misalignment also offers a large gap for filth to enter the contact
area, which increases wear.

My guess(tm) is that the bulk of the wear and friction occurs when the
chain is wrapped around a gear and forced to change direction while
under tension. If the pin and bushing are full of dirt, it will act
as an abrasive. Chain alignment may also be a factor because a link
is only under tension and in rotation where it exits the freewheel and
again where it enters the chainwheel. It would be fairly easy to
build a chain link tester, that takes one link of a chain, puts it
under tension, cyclically rotates the chain through an angle that
approximates the freewheel exit angle, maybe adds some misalignment,
adds some lube, dirt, water, etc, and tests the relative effectiveness
of various chains, lubes, and seals. While not as definitive as
testing the full transmission and chain in a more bicycle realistic
fixture, it could produce useful results. Also, if the pin and
bushing wear pattern resemble the wear pattern of a typical worn
bicycle chain, it might prove my speculation as to where the wear is
really produced.

>As an aside, the Universities of Leeds, Sheffield and York, published
>a study: "Lee, P.M. and Priest, M. (2004) An innovation integrated
>approach to testing motorcycle drive chain lubricants." which shows
>the comparative effectiveness of several alternate chine lubricants.
>
>Interestingly the weight loss due to wear vary considerably. For the
>large sprocket a wax spray was most effective with a weight loss of
>0.12, PTFE was 0.17, Oil Drip was 0.24 and no lube was 0.40

Interesting. Are those numbers in percent of weight loss?

>For the small sprocket Wax was 0.04, PTFE 0.06, Oil drip 0.06 and no
>lube 0.27.
>
>For the chain the numbers are Wax 0.13, PTFE 0.22 Oil drip 0.03 and no
>lube 0.44.
>
>Overall, it appears that wax is preferable for chain transmission
>lubrication.

The down side of wax is that it doesn't flow and therefore voids and
gaps will fill with water and crud. Once the chain begins to wear,
there is no way to add more wax to fill the enlarged void formed by
the metal loss, except to perform the sacred chain cleaning ritual.
Wax does one thing very well, which it keep dirt out of the contact
area. I suspect that a motorcycle chain style o-ring or x-ring would
do the same or better, thus allowing the use of oil instead of wax.
Also, I suspect the reason that wax produced better numbers is that
the wax tended to stay in place, while the oil dripped out of the
chain, which is what a sealed chain prevents.

Personally, I'm not looking for a chain that will shave a few
milliseconds off someone's time trial. Also, shaving a few points off
the chain drag doesn't get my attention. What does is finding a chain
that will last for the life of the bicycle, without service,
replacement, or ritual baptism in wax or oil. Andre Jute may have
come close with his Hebie Chainglider test, but I think it can be done
with better chain design, materials, and construction.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 6/4/2016 1:06 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>
> The down side of wax is that it doesn't flow and therefore voids and
> gaps will fill with water and crud. Once the chain begins to wear,
> there is no way to add more wax to fill the enlarged void formed by
> the metal loss, except to perform the sacred chain cleaning ritual.

That's probably true. But the data we've seen shows that wax (or
actually, paraffin wax with either a bit of oil or some teflon powder
added) gives the greatest chain life and the greatest efficiency. It
seems silly to harp on that largely theoretical "down side" when its "up
sides" are so much greater than anything else!

> Wax does one thing very well, which it keep dirt out of the contact
> area.

Indeed. Here's a little anecdote from Thursday's club ride, where one
guy has expressed interest in my clean chains, and is beginning to
experiment with my wax plus torch method.

My wife and I have been riding our tandem on these rides. I've been
griping about how hard it is for us to lift the tandem onto our roof
rack. Well, after Thursday's ride, when lifting the tandem, I sort of
bobbled it a bit and had to quickly grab the frame tubes that connect
the two bottom brackets. In doing so, I accidentally wrapped my fingers
around the synchronizing chain.

Once the tandem was on the roof rack, I walked over to show my fingers
to the guy interested in chain wax. Why? Because my fingers were
perfectly clean, with not a smudge. That chain has hundreds of miles on
it since its last wax job, which was some time last year.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 13:40:28 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>That's probably true. But the data we've seen shows that wax (or
>actually, paraffin wax with either a bit of oil or some teflon powder
>added) gives the greatest chain life and the greatest efficiency. It
>seems silly to harp on that largely theoretical "down side" when its "up
>sides" are so much greater than anything else!

Sigh. You've found your solution with wax and a little oil. Andre
Jute has found his with a chain cover. Others have found nirvana in
belt drives and gear hubs. I haven't found my solution, but I've been
tinkering with plastic drive chains
<http://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/bicycle-plastic-chain-semi-closed-type_1757152265.html>
and wondering about hydraulic power transfer:
<http://bicycledesign.net/?s=jackknife>
<http://www.google.com/patents/US4546990>
<http://hydraulicspneumatics.com/200/TechZone/Accumulators/Article/False/9778/TechZone-Accumulators>
<http://hydraulicspneumatics.com/200/TechZone/Accumulators/Article/False/11793/TechZone-Accumulators>
So, we seem to have a variety of alleged solutions, all of which
allegedly solve the riders alleged chain problems, and all of which
suggest that no further study is necessary. As always, I beg to
differ and suggest that the harping will likely continue.

>Indeed. Here's a little anecdote from Thursday's club ride, where one
>guy has expressed interest in my clean chains, and is beginning to
>experiment with my wax plus torch method.
>
>My wife and I have been riding our tandem on these rides. I've been
>griping about how hard it is for us to lift the tandem onto our roof
>rack. Well, after Thursday's ride, when lifting the tandem, I sort of
>bobbled it a bit and had to quickly grab the frame tubes that connect
>the two bottom brackets. In doing so, I accidentally wrapped my fingers
>around the synchronizing chain.
>
>Once the tandem was on the roof rack, I walked over to show my fingers
>to the guy interested in chain wax. Why? Because my fingers were
>perfectly clean, with not a smudge. That chain has hundreds of miles on
>it since its last wax job, which was some time last year.

Having a nice clean chain is probably a good thing. However, the
outside of the chain does nothing to lubricate the internals. Well,
maybe an effect on freewheel gear wear. What's important is what's
happening inside the chain. To the best of my limited knowledge, worn
out chains lubricated with wax look very much the same as those
lubricated by oil, which suggests that was and oil are equally
effective.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 04 Jun 2016 11:33:53 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

><http://hydraulicspneumatics.com/200/TechZone/Accumulators/Article/False/9778/TechZone-Accumulators>
><http://hydraulicspneumatics.com/200/TechZone/Accumulators/Article/False/11793/TechZone-Accumulators>

More on getting rid of the chain:
<http://www.mobilehydraulictips.com/nfpa-take-handlebars-chainless-challenge/>
<http://www.calpolynews.calpoly.edu/news_releases/2016/April/inaclutch.html>
<https://www.ohio.edu/engineering/news/news-story.cfm?newsItem=65CB6AA7-5056-A81E-8D202C33200E0976>

This has quite a bit on the design requirements:
<http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1272&context=mesp>
(10 MB)

Google for "Chainless Challenge"
<https://www.google.com/search?q=Chainless+Challenge&tbm=isch>
<https://www.google.com/search?q=Chainless+Challenge>
<https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=chainless+challenge>

Soon, everyone will be riding bicycles with hydraulic or pneumatic
drive trains.

After looking at all the above and more, I noticed that something was
missing. There was no sponsorship by any of the established bicycle
manufacturers.