Chain waxing + graphite question
HarryB
quite pleased with the results. Before I rewax I take the still cool
"cake" of wax out of the cooker and scrape off the small amount of
sediment (dirt) that has settled to the bottom of the cake.
I have read that some people recommend adding some graphite to the wax
to help increase the life of the chain. However, if I add graphite to
the wax, wouldn't it settle to the bottom of the wax cake after I'm
done with waxing? In that case, wouldn't I remove the graphite when I
scrape off the sediment, defeating the purpose of adding the graphite?
Harry
Paul Kopit
>I have read that some people recommend adding some graphite to the wax
>to help increase the life of the chain. However, if I add graphite to
>the wax, wouldn't it settle to the bottom of the wax cake after I'm
>done with waxing? In that case, wouldn't I remove the graphite when I
>scrape off the sediment, defeating the purpose of adding the graphite?
I don't add graphite and don't see what is would do. I do add maybe
5% motor oil to the wax. Parrafin wax is a bad lubricant. When a
part gets scratched, the wax doesn't flow into the sratch. Maybe the
small amount of oil in the wax will do that. I've had great luck in
waxing chains in SoCal, where it is dry. I usually rewax when the
chain squeeks. Getting caught in the rain will ruin a wax job almost
instantly. I rode a waxed tandem chain in the rain one day. Next
morning the dried chain already had rust spots.
You can put a layer of screen on the bottom of your wax pot and avoid
having to scrape the black layer off.
Mike
"HarryB" <No...@none.net> wrote in message
news:095hu1ll0snp1igkg...@4ax.com...
I've used this product in the past. Seems to work great. And now with a
new distributor, should be available.
HarryB
I don't see where ChainButter is better than the hot wax method I
presently use. They recommend basically the same procedure for
ChainButter that I use for hot waxing my chains. However, I use a
FryDaddy deep fryer to heat the wax, so there is little danger of
fire. I don't keep accurate notes, but am quite sure I get much better
mileage between waxings than the 300 - 500 miles they claim for
ChainButter. [1] The hot wax cost me only pennys and I expect to use
the same wax for a long time. The ChainButter costs $19.95 + shipping.
[1] I recently replaced the drive chain on our tandem (it broke) which
had just over 2,000 miles on it. I had waxed it either two or three
times and it had only stretched 25% according to my Park Tools Chain
Checker.
Harry
Mike DeMicco
HarryB <No...@none.net> wrote:
Don't use graphite- it's messy and corrosive if the chain gets wet.
Teflon is a better additive. In fact, lose the wax and use pure Teflon
lubricant from Dupont.
--
Mike DeMicco <blaster186...@comcast.net>
o-dawg
<mike4...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>"HarryB" <No...@none.net> wrote in message
>news:095hu1ll0snp1igkg...@4ax.com...
...
> I've used this product in the past. Seems to work great. And now with a
>new distributor, should be available.
>
>www.chainbutter.com
How about hydrogenated palm oil or some other processed vegetable oil
that's close to solid at room temperature? It would be a lot cheaper.
Something like Crisco, but a little more solid. Cocoa butter? It
would smell nice.
HarryB
What is the exact name of this product, and why is it better than the
hot wax method that I'm now using? My priorities are as follows
(highest priority first):
1) Clean chain
2) Reduced chain wear
3) Low cost
4) Ease of relubing
Harry
Patrick Lamb
>Teflon is a better additive. In fact, lose the wax and use pure Teflon
>lubricant from Dupont.
I assume this "pure Teflon lubricant" is some sort of marketing
nonsense. Pure Teflon is solid. I suspect SB's Real Man Saddles
would work better than Dupont's Real Man Teflon Lube...
Pat
Email address works as is.
Ozark Bicycle
HarryB wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 09:45:22 -0800, Mike DeMicco
> <blaster186...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <095hu1ll0snp1igkg...@4ax.com>,
> > HarryB <No...@none.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I have been hot waxing my chains for the last year or so and have been
> >> quite pleased with the results. Before I rewax I take the still cool
> >> "cake" of wax out of the cooker and scrape off the small amount of
> >> sediment (dirt) that has settled to the bottom of the cake.
> >>
> >> I have read that some people recommend adding some graphite to the wax
> >> to help increase the life of the chain. However, if I add graphite to
> >> the wax, wouldn't it settle to the bottom of the wax cake after I'm
> >> done with waxing? In that case, wouldn't I remove the graphite when I
> >> scrape off the sediment, defeating the purpose of adding the graphite?
> >>
> >> Harry
> >
> >Don't use graphite- it's messy and corrosive if the chain gets wet.
> >Teflon is a better additive. In fact, lose the wax and use pure Teflon
> >lubricant from Dupont.
>
> What is the exact name of this product,
It *might* be "DuPont Teflon Multi-Use Lubricant", a liquid with teflon
solids which sets up dry. On the back, it says Mfg. & Dist. By Finish
Line, Inc. I've used it on a number of things (pivots, etc.) with good
results, but never on a chain (I have my own "chain ritual"). The good
news is that a 4oz bottle is ~$3.39 at a big box home improvement
center, so it's much cheaper than stuff with the official Finish Line
label.
Ed Pirrero
Mike DeMicco wrote:
>
> Don't use graphite- it's messy and corrosive if the chain gets wet.
>
Corrosive? How?
E.P.
Mike DeMicco
"Ozark Bicycle" <bicycle...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> HarryB wrote:
> > What is the exact name of this product,
>
> It *might* be "DuPont Teflon Multi-Use Lubricant", a liquid with teflon
> solids which sets up dry. On the back, it says Mfg. & Dist. By Finish
> Line, Inc. I've used it on a number of things (pivots, etc.) with good
> results, but never on a chain (I have my own "chain ritual"). The good
> news is that a 4oz bottle is ~$3.39 at a big box home improvement
> center, so it's much cheaper than stuff with the official Finish Line
> label.
Yes, that is it. See
http://www.performancelubricant.dupont.com/dp_products_multi.html . It
may be made by Finish Line, but it is sold under the DuPont brand name.
It says it can be used on bicycle chains.
>
> > and why is it better than the
> > hot wax method that I'm now using? My priorities are as follows
> > (highest priority first):
> > 1) Clean chain
> > 2) Reduced chain wear
> > 3) Low cost
> > 4) Ease of relubing
Because wax is a poor lubricant, doesn't last, and doesn't hold up to
water. I've used the DuPont lubricant on my mountain bike chain, and it
stays clean. I have only tried the squeeze bottle, not the spray.
ProLink is also a good lube, but the chain doesn't stay as clean in the
presence of dirt as with the Teflon lubricant.
--
Mike DeMicco <blaster186...@comcast.net>
Mike DeMicco
"Ed Pirrero" <gcmsc...@gmail.com> wrote:
It's called galvanic corrosion, caused when two dissimilar metals are
brought together in the presence of an electrolyte (e.g., water). Do a
Google search for more information.
--
Mike DeMicco <blaster186...@comcast.net>
flatline
Which two dissimilar metals are we talking about here? I don't believe
carbon is a metal.
Mike DeMicco
"flatline" <blue...@usa.com> wrote:
I don't know if it is or is not, but frankly I don't care. For the
purposes of galvanic corrosion, graphite is highly incompatible with
steel or aluminum. That is a fact. Look it up. The military has
universally banned graphite in lubricants, just because of the corrosion
problem.
--
Mike DeMicco <blaster186...@comcast.net>
Andrew Price
<blaster186...@comcast.net> wrote:
[---]
>Because wax is a poor lubricant, doesn't last, and doesn't hold up to
>water.
That's also what I've often read elsewhere; but surely wax must offer
some advantages - how else do you explain the almost religious fervour
of its proponents?
Ron Ruff
Andrew Price wrote:
>
> >Because wax is a poor lubricant, doesn't last, and doesn't hold up to
> >water.
>
> That's also what I've often read elsewhere; but surely wax must offer
> some advantages - how else do you explain the almost religious fervour
> of its proponents?
And the chains also seem to last longer compared to any other lube...
I'm starting to believe that cleanliness of the chains is *very*
important in achieving a long life (and reduced friction)... more so
than lubrication.
Mike DeMicco
"Ron Ruff" <rruff...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Andrew Price wrote:
> >
> > >Because wax is a poor lubricant, doesn't last, and doesn't hold up to
> > >water.
> >
> > That's also what I've often read elsewhere; but surely wax must offer
> > some advantages - how else do you explain the almost religious fervour
> > of its proponents?
>
> And the chains also seem to last longer compared to any other lube...
Do you have proof of that? I tried wax, but quickly got tired of having
it fail mid ride; as a minimum causing squeaking and as a maximum,
severe chainsuck. Also, it's worthless when it gets wet. I then tried
blending wax with oil, but that defeated the cleanliness aspect of the
wax. Besides, it was a PITA to go through the whole ritual and has to be
done too often for my liking. Plus the wax flakes off and builds up on
cogs, chainrings and pulleys and thus is not as clean as everyone makes
it out to be.
> I'm starting to believe that cleanliness of the chains is *very*
> important in achieving a long life (and reduced friction)... more so
> than lubrication.
That may be true, but there are other lubes that are fairly clean and
lubricate better and last longer.
--
Mike DeMicco <blaster186...@comcast.net>
Ed Pirrero
What a polite and informative reply.
E.P.
Matt O'Toole
I would think graphite would be unimaginably messy. Put a little oil in
your wax instead.
Matt O.
HarryB
I can't agree. When I replaced the last drive chain on our tandem
(because it broke,) it had just over 2,000 miles on it. I checked it
with a Park Tools chain checker and it measured about 25% stretch. My
timing chain has about 3,200 miles on it and I just checked and it has
not even stretched 25%. (Since this chain is longer than the drive
chain, isn't shifted, and only has my torque on it, I would expect it
to last longer than the drive chain.) These chains have been
thoroughly cleaned of the original lube and only waxed. I submit that
if wax is a poor lubricant I wouldn't be seeing this kind of mileage.
>
>doesn't last,
>
I suspect that I get at least 700 miles before the chain would start
to squeak. That is much longer between relubing than other lubes I
tried. (We only ride pavement.)
>
>and doesn't hold up to water.
I do agree with that. If the chain only gets slightly wet from riding
in a light rain I didn't have to rewax, but after a downpour it
squeaks immediately. We seldom ride in the rain, so this isn't much of
a concern for me.
> I've used the DuPont lubricant on my mountain bike chain, and it
>stays clean. I have only tried the squeeze bottle, not the spray.
>
>ProLink is also a good lube, but the chain doesn't stay as clean in the
>presence of dirt as with the Teflon lubricant.
>
I have tried a couple of different lubricants, ProLink being the one I
tried the longest before switching to hot wax. I called ProLink and
followed the directions I was given for the "correct" preparation of
the chain prior to using ProLink (thoroughly saturating the chain with
ProLink.) I don't recall how often I was supposed to relube, but it
involved putting a drop of lube on each link. This takes quite a while
(a tandem has *many* links.) Some of the lube would drip off, so I had
to put down rags or cardboard to absorb the drips. Then I had to leave
the bike sit overnight or the lube would sling off. And, I was told to
be sure to relube after each ride in the rain. Then I needed to run a
cloth over the chain to take off the excess lube before riding after
relubing.
All of this was a lot of work and the chain was not whistle clean like
with the hot wax method. The chain rings, cassette, and rear
derailleur always had a black residue on them. It wasn't a heavy
residue, but it was dirty. Since I try to keep our tandem showroom
clean, a clean drive train is very important to me. Besides, I didn't
like to see a chainring tattoo on my stoker's lovely legs - she's
never had one after I switched to hot waxing.
Harry
HarryB
<blaster186...@comcast.net> wrote:
>In article <1139518113....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Ron Ruff" <rruff...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Andrew Price wrote:
>> >
>> > >Because wax is a poor lubricant, doesn't last, and doesn't hold up to
>> > >water.
>> >
>> > That's also what I've often read elsewhere; but surely wax must offer
>> > some advantages - how else do you explain the almost religious fervour
>> > of its proponents?
>>
>> And the chains also seem to last longer compared to any other lube...
>
>Do you have proof of that?
>
Here is a copy of my reply to another claim about poor mileage of
waxed chains:
I can't agree. When I replaced the last drive chain on our tandem
(because it broke,) it had just over 2,000 miles on it. I checked it
with a Park Tools chain checker and it measured about 25% stretch. My
timing chain has about 3,200 miles on it and I just checked and it has
not even stretched 25%. (Since this chain is longer than the drive
chain, isn't shifted, and only has my torque on it, I would expect it
to last longer than the drive chain.) These chains have been
thoroughly cleaned of the original lube and only waxed. I submit that
if wax is a poor lubricant I wouldn't be seeing this kind of mileage.
>
>I tried wax, but quickly got tired of having
>it fail mid ride; as a minimum causing squeaking
>
I don't keep accurate records, but I'm sure I get upwards of 500 miles
between waxings, probably closer to 700, assuming no rain. Also, note
that we only ride pavement.
>
> and as a maximum, severe chainsuck.
>
I'm not a bicycle mechanic, but I can't image why one would get severe
chainsuck from a waxed chain.
>
>Also, it's worthless when it gets wet.
>
True.
>
>I then tried
>blending wax with oil, but that defeated the cleanliness aspect of the
>wax. Besides, it was a PITA to go through the whole ritual and has to be
>done too often for my liking.
>
I don't like having to lube the chains regardless of the method. I
have found waxing to be acceptable, however, because of the benefits
for me.
It really isn't that big of a deal if one gets it down to a ritual:
Remove chain from bike and drop in cleaner (Simple Green.) Remove from
cleaner, rinse in hot water and put into deep fryer. Turn on fryer and
let it "cook" for 15 minutes. Remove and let drip for a minute. Lay
chain down on a paper towel until cool enough to touch and put back on
bike. Turn pedals at high speed in high gear for a few minutes and I'm
done. While the chain is being cleaned and "cooked" I'm cleaning the
rest of the bike which is quite clean because there is *no* oily,
grimy residue from the drive chain anywhere.
>
>Plus the wax flakes off and builds up on
>cogs, chainrings and pulleys and thus is not as clean as everyone makes
>it out to be.
>
Yes, I had also problems with that at first, but with a change in
technique I have reduced the flakes to the point that they are barely
noticeable (and I've been accused of being a cleanliness freak! I
dispute that charge because I *never* clean my bikes more than once a
ride. I think a cleanliness freak would clean his bike at every rest
stop!)
>
>> I'm starting to believe that cleanliness of the chains is *very*
>> important in achieving a long life (and reduced friction)... more so
>> than lubrication.
>
>That may be true, but there are other lubes that are fairly clean and
>lubricate better and last longer.
>
I suspect that the advantages of hot waxing chains is to a great
degree a factor of how one rides (mostly dry verses mostly wet
environment) and one's personality: Waxing a chain is a little more
demanding of technique than simply dropping on some lube. Someone who
is rather meticulous about bike maintenance is probably willing to
take the time to refine the technique, but someone who is like a
fellow rider who takes his bike to the LBS to have it cleaned and
lubed would find waxing to be far too much work and doesn't really
appreciate a clean bike.
Harry
frkr...@gmail.com
I second the oil. And let me report on a failed experiment, a failed
graphite alternative.
Some years ago, the monthly magazine of the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers had a very short article about some guys who were
investigating boric acid powder as a dry lubricant. They claimed that
initial tests showed it to be less effected by moisture than either
graphite or moly disulphide.
I thought: Hmm - better in moisture. It's white, not black.
Shouldn't look messy. Maybe that would be a good addition to my chain
wax, instead of (or in addition to) the 5% oil I normally blend in!
So I mixed up a batch. It wanted to settle pretty badly, so I kept
stirring energetically until it hardened, to keep it in suspension.
Then I broke out a chunk and used it in my normal non-dip hot wax
procedure. That is, warm 10" of the chain with a low-flame propane
torch, crayon the wax on, re-warm until it flows in, backpedal 10" and
repeat. Wipe off excess when done.
Briefly, I stopped the experiement in a few months. It seemed to me
that the chain began to rust very, very quickly. Perhaps because the
lube was acidic? I don't know. But I never heard any more about those
researchers having any success either.
For me, the oil in the wax works best. I certainly have no problem
with rain destroying the lube. And although nobody ever calls my bikes
clean, they are _much_ cleaner than they were before I started using
wax.
- Frank Krygowski
SMS
It doesn't attract dirt. Some people are overly concerned about how
clean the chain is on the outside, rather than how well it's lubricated
on the inside.
The facts about how poor a lubricant was is, are well known. But as you
stated, it's a religious fervor, from people with too much time on their
hands. The facts are not likely to change their minds.
Mike DeMicco
news:29tnu1lbcoqrpn71g...@4ax.com:
> Here is a copy of my reply to another claim about poor mileage of
> waxed chains:
> I can't agree. When I replaced the last drive chain on our tandem
> (because it broke,) it had just over 2,000 miles on it. I checked it
> with a Park Tools chain checker and it measured about 25% stretch. My
> timing chain has about 3,200 miles on it and I just checked and it has
> not even stretched 25%. (Since this chain is longer than the drive
> chain, isn't shifted, and only has my torque on it, I would expect it
> to last longer than the drive chain.) These chains have been
> thoroughly cleaned of the original lube and only waxed. I submit that
> if wax is a poor lubricant I wouldn't be seeing this kind of mileage.
Actually 2000 miles is not very many miles. I get over 10,000 miles on a
chain before replacing it without using wax. The key is not to oil a
dirty chain, as it says in the rec.bicycles FAQ. Also, use a ruler
instead of the Park chain checker. It is inaccurate.
>>I tried wax, but quickly got tired of having
>>it fail mid ride; as a minimum causing squeaking
>>
> I don't keep accurate records, but I'm sure I get upwards of 500 miles
> between waxings, probably closer to 700, assuming no rain. Also, note
> that we only ride pavement.
I suspect you're getting this kind of mileage because you have more than
just wax in your mixture (like some amount of oil, maybe left over from
the lube the manufacturer put on the chain), or maybe because the chain
is so long on a tandem, the wax lasts longer.
>> and as a maximum, severe chainsuck.
>>
> I'm not a bicycle mechanic, but I can't image why one would get severe
> chainsuck from a waxed chain.
The chainsuck happened when the wax went away/failed. Just moderate
pressure on the cranks on a climb without shifting would suck the chain.
Luckily I happened to have a small squeeze bottle of lube that fixed the
problem.
> I suspect that the advantages of hot waxing chains is to a great
> degree a factor of how one rides (mostly dry verses mostly wet
> environment) and one's personality: Waxing a chain is a little more
> demanding of technique than simply dropping on some lube. Someone who
> is rather meticulous about bike maintenance is probably willing to
> take the time to refine the technique, but someone who is like a
> fellow rider who takes his bike to the LBS to have it cleaned and
> lubed would find waxing to be far too much work and doesn't really
> appreciate a clean bike.
Again, how clean is clean. Ugly black flecks all over the place doesn't
strike me as being clean.
If you look at some of the wax lubricants on the market (e.g., from
Finish Line) they keep the chain clean and they are easier to deal with
than the waxing ritual. The DuPont Teflon lube I mentioned doesn't seem
to attract dirt. Teflon is a much better lubricant than wax, and doesn't
wash off as easily in wet weather.
--
Mike DeMicco <blast...@comcast.net>
Paul Kopit
>It really isn't that big of a deal if one gets it down to a ritual:
>Remove chain from bike and drop in cleaner (Simple Green.) Remove from
>cleaner, rinse in hot water and put into deep fryer. Turn on fryer and
>let it "cook" for 15 minutes. Remove and let drip for a minute. Lay
>chain down on a paper towel until cool enough to touch and put back on
>bike. Turn pedals at high speed in high gear for a few minutes and I'm
>done. While the chain is being cleaned and "cooked" I'm cleaning the
>rest of the bike which is quite clean because there is *no* oily,
>grimy residue from the drive chain anywhere.
You can skip the bath in Simple Green or other solvent. There's
really no dirt on the chain. You can put some metal screen on the
bottom of your pan to let the dirt drop through and not touch the
chain. Just put the chain into the hot wax. Get the wax to a
temperature of about 300 degrees F. That will displace the surface
water on the chain and permit the wax to adhere to the metal. Fish
the hot chain out of the fry pan with a spoke and wipe the outside of
the chain while still hot and that will do away with the flaking. The
only lubrication needed is in the pins, which don't get wiped.
Rewax the chain when it starts to squeek. In a warm, dry climate,
road chains and cassettes can last 10,000 mi. One trip in the rain
and you need to redo the job. On tour, I use Prolink.
Michael Press
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
I do not see anyone allowing feelings to interfere with
what they say in this thread; nor taking their ideas on
the matter particularly seriously.
--
Michael Press
SYJ
HarryB wrote:
---snip---
> It really isn't that big of a deal if one gets it down to a ritual:
> Remove chain from bike and drop in cleaner (Simple Green.) Remove from
> cleaner, rinse in hot water and put into deep fryer.
---/snip---
Be careful using simple green to clean your chain...
http://www.velonews.com/tech/report/articles/9216.0.html
SYJ
frkr...@gmail.com
Paul Kopit wrote:
> In a warm, dry climate,
> road chains and cassettes can last 10,000 mi. One trip in the rain
> and you need to redo the job.
That last sentence is absolutely not true, provided your wax has a few
percent oil blended into it when it's molten.
> On tour, I use Prolink.
If there's a detriment to waxing the chain, this is it. Even my
non-dip torch method, easy as it is, is a little too cumbersome for a
long tour.
- Frank Krygowski
HarryB
<blaster186...@comcast.net> wrote:
>HarryB <No...@none.net> wrote in
>news:29tnu1lbcoqrpn71g...@4ax.com:
>
>> Here is a copy of my reply to another claim about poor mileage of
>> waxed chains:
>> I can't agree. When I replaced the last drive chain on our tandem
>> (because it broke,) it had just over 2,000 miles on it. I checked it
>> with a Park Tools chain checker and it measured about 25% stretch. My
>> timing chain has about 3,200 miles on it and I just checked and it has
>> not even stretched 25%. (Since this chain is longer than the drive
>> chain, isn't shifted, and only has my torque on it, I would expect it
>> to last longer than the drive chain.) These chains have been
>> thoroughly cleaned of the original lube and only waxed. I submit that
>> if wax is a poor lubricant I wouldn't be seeing this kind of mileage.
>
>Actually 2000 miles is not very many miles. I get over 10,000 miles on a
>chain before replacing it without using wax.
>
The chain that I replaced which had just over 2,000 miles on it was
defective (it broke) - it didn't wear out. As I noted, it showed about
0.25% (not 25% as I inaccurately wrote above) stretch. IOW, after some
2,000 miles of tandem riding it had barely stretched. And the only
lube that had been used was wax.
Will I get 10,000 miles from my chains? I have no idea because I only
started riding 2 years ago and we have only put about 7,000 miles on
our tandem during that time.
>
>The key is not to oil a
>dirty chain, as it says in the rec.bicycles FAQ.
>
That's one of the nice things about a waxed chain, it stays so
wonderfully clean!
>Also, use a ruler instead of the Park chain checker. It is inaccurate.
>
I doubt that a ruler is more accurate than the Park Tool CC-2 that I
use. I suspect that the average biker's ruler is not a precision
instrument, but rather a normal ruler which is not very accurate.
>
>>>I tried wax, but quickly got tired of having
>>>it fail mid ride; as a minimum causing squeaking
>>>
>> I don't keep accurate records, but I'm sure I get upwards of 500 miles
>> between waxings, probably closer to 700, assuming no rain. Also, note
>> that we only ride pavement.
>
>I suspect you're getting this kind of mileage because you have more than
>just wax in your mixture (like some amount of oil, maybe left over from
>the lube the manufacturer put on the chain), or maybe because the chain
>is so long on a tandem, the wax lasts longer.
>
I doubt there is anything in the wax other than a little dirt. Before
I waxed the new chains I soaked them in mineral spirits overnight,
rinsed them for a few minutes in Simple Green and then further rinsed
them in hot water.
BTW, the drive chain on a "regular" tandem is about the same length as
the chain on a single bike.
>
>>> and as a maximum, severe chainsuck.
>>>
>> I'm not a bicycle mechanic, but I can't image why one would get severe
>> chainsuck from a waxed chain.
>
>The chainsuck happened when the wax went away/failed. Just moderate
>pressure on the cranks on a climb without shifting would suck the chain.
>Luckily I happened to have a small squeeze bottle of lube that fixed the
>problem.
>
>> I suspect that the advantages of hot waxing chains is to a great
>> degree a factor of how one rides (mostly dry verses mostly wet
>> environment) and one's personality: Waxing a chain is a little more
>> demanding of technique than simply dropping on some lube. Someone who
>> is rather meticulous about bike maintenance is probably willing to
>> take the time to refine the technique, but someone who is like a
>> fellow rider who takes his bike to the LBS to have it cleaned and
>> lubed would find waxing to be far too much work and doesn't really
>> appreciate a clean bike.
>
>Again, how clean is clean. Ugly black flecks all over the place doesn't
>strike me as being clean.
>
*I* don't get black flakes all over the place after I refined my
waxing technique. All I get are a few white flakes after the first
ride and a few black ones on the next couple of rides. A few minutes
of cleaning removes them and there is never any dirt that accumulates
on the drive train or bike from the chain after that.
>If you look at some of the wax lubricants on the market (e.g., from
>Finish Line) they keep the chain clean and they are easier to deal with
>than the waxing ritual. The DuPont Teflon lube I mentioned doesn't seem
>to attract dirt. Teflon is a much better lubricant than wax, and doesn't
>wash off as easily in wet weather.
>
So far I've been very happy with the results of waxing and my question
was simply if it would be advisable to add graphite to the wax. I see
no reason to experiment with high priced lubricants. I already have a
couple of bottles of ProLink left over from my last experiment.
Harry
Michael Press
HarryB <No...@none.net> wrote:
> I doubt that a ruler is more accurate than the Park Tool CC-2 that I
> use. I suspect that the average biker's ruler is not a precision
> instrument, but rather a normal ruler which is not very accurate.
A good steel ruler is as good as or better than speciality
chain gauges.
1. Measuring over one foot is more accurate than measuring
over an inch or two.
2. A ruler measures pin to pin. The specialty chain gauges
measure from roller to roller, and this is a less precise
measurement because the rollers shift and do not tell you
where the pins are.
--
Michael Press
HarryB
My response was to Mike DeMicco's statement, "Also, use a ruler
instead of the Park chain checker. It is inaccurate." I understood
this to mean that Mike alleged that the Park Tool chain checker is an
inaccurate instrument in the sense that it does not measure the same
distance consistently. However, based on your explanation, I now think
that what he meant was that the CC-2 does not measure the distance
that he thinks is important in trying to determine chain wear.
As far as the accuracy of various rulers is concerned, I know for a
fact that not all rulers are accurate. I was quite surprised to read
that Jobst Brandt advocated that using a free yardstick from a
hardware store was accurate enough for his purposes (
http://tinyurl.com/b6hyk ). Aside from the parallax issue with a
wooden yardstick, I remember many years ago, when I was quite young,
that a project I was working on ended up poorly constructed because I
had used a yardstick that I got as a freebie from a hardware store. It
was very inaccurate compared to the Craftsman tape measure I should
have used.
I think I grasp somewhat the reasoning behind measuring the distance
between pins rather than between rollers. But, Lennard Zinn in the
latest version of his book "Zinn & The Art of Road Bike Maintenance"
writes: "The most reliable way to see whether the chain is worn out is
to employ a chain-elongation gauge, such as the model make by
Rohloff."
He continues that a second method is to measure the distance between
the rivets of 12 links and a third method is to compare the length of
50 links of the chain in question to a new chain of equal number of
lengths.
I checked 8 chains that I have here with the Park Tool CC-2 and also
with a ruler (which might be reasonably accurate.) The chains range
from new to excessively worn. On 6 of the chains the two methods seem
to produce similar results. The other 2 chains are very dirty because
they are on a used tandem I just purchased and I wouldn't draw any
conclusion until I get those chains cleaned up.
I'm going to spend some time researching this because I run expensive
chains on our tandem and don't want to waste money by replacing them
more or less often than necessary.
Harry
SMS
Good article. As one of the writers wrote, "Since the main ingredient is
water, I would not recommend soaking a chain in it." Frankly I am amazed
that people would actually use water to clean a chain, it's a very bad
idea. You can dry the outside, but water remains inside, in the worst
possible area. You want to use a non-water based solvent such as kerosene.
Michael Press
HarryB <No...@none.net> wrote:
In another thread on this topic we got the definitive
method; I do not remember who it is. He keeps a new chain
hung on the wall and compares chains in use by hanging
them next to the new chain.
---------------------------------------------
On the accuracy of scales, I compared a dial caliper
(0.01" ticks) with an engineer's scale. They agree to the
limit of observation. I compared the engineer's scale with
two steel desk rulers, a wooden desk ruler, a steel tape
measure, a roofer's square, a machinist's square, a
draftsman's tee square, and a 4 foot builders ruler.
The wooden desk ruler is off by 0.01" over 12".
The steel tape measure is off by 0.01" over 12".
The tee square is off by 0.02" over 12".
The 4 foot builders ruler is off by 0.03" over 12" all
along its length.
The other scales showed no deviation from the engineer's
scale.
--
Michael Press
HarryB
wrote:
I don't soak my chains in Simple Green for an extended period of time.
I simply put them into a mixture of Simple Green for a couple of
minutes, swish them around, and then rinse them in hot water.
The wet chains are then dropped into the cold deep fryer and then
cooked as the wax heats up. All of the water is evaporated off the
chains due to the temperature of the hot wax.
Harry
David Damerell
>http://tinyurl.com/b6hyk ). Aside from the parallax issue with a
>wooden yardstick, I remember many years ago, when I was quite young,
>that a project I was working on ended up poorly constructed because I
>had used a yardstick that I got as a freebie from a hardware store. It
>was very inaccurate compared to the Craftsman tape measure I should
>have used.
But, when you fit a new chain, you can check rulers you have lying around
against it to see which one is accurate.
>I'm going to spend some time researching this because I run expensive
>chains on our tandem and don't want to waste money by replacing them
>more or less often than necessary.
Well, I wouldn't worry too much about the sync chain...
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Today is First Sunday, February - a weekend.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>>> I doubt that a ruler is more accurate than the Park Tool CC-2 that I
>>> use. I suspect that the average biker's ruler is not a precision
>>> instrument, but rather a normal ruler which is not very accurate.
>> A good steel ruler is as good as or better than specialty chain
>> gauge.
>> 1. Measuring over one foot is more accurate than measuring over an
>> inch or two.
>> 2. A ruler measures pin to pin. The specialty chain gauges measure
>> from roller to roller, and this is a less precise measurement
>> because the rollers shift and do not tell you where the pins are.
> My response was to Mike DeMicco's statement, "Also, use a ruler
> instead of the Park chain checker. It is inaccurate." I understood
> this to mean that Mike alleged that the Park Tool chain checker is
> an inaccurate instrument in the sense that it does not measure the
> same distance consistently. However, based on your explanation, I
> now think that what he meant was that the CC-2 does not measure the
> distance that he thinks is important in trying to determine chain
> wear.
> As far as the accuracy of various rulers is concerned, I know for a
> fact that not all rulers are accurate. I was quite surprised to read
> that Jobst Brandt advocated that using a free yardstick from a
> hardware store was accurate enough for his purposes
> Aside from the parallax issue with a wooden yardstick, I remember
> many years ago, when I was quite young, that a project I was working
> on ended up poorly constructed because I had used a yardstick that I
> got as a freebie from a hardware store. It was very inaccurate
> compared to the Craftsman tape measure I should have used.
There is no parallax. the ruler markings can be brought into contact
with the chain pins on the bicycle. Oh pshaw! I've got enough
promotional yard sticks from local shops that are more accurate than a
fraction of a line width and that over 36 inches. You're grasping at
straws to possibly justify your purchase of a chain gauge of some
type. Don't worry, no one guessed until now that you had been
suckered.
> I think I grasp somewhat the reasoning behind measuring the distance
> between pins rather than between rollers. But, Lennard Zinn in the
> latest version of his book "Zinn & The Art of Road Bike Maintenance"
> writes: "The most reliable way to see whether the chain is worn out is
> to employ a chain-elongation gauge, such as the model make by
> Rohloff."
Well, there you have a good reason to doubt other things that Zinn
passes along from bicycle myth and lore, some of which is worthwhile
and some not. I hope you can make up your own mind about whether
measuring roller spacing has much to do with chain pitch.
> He continues that a second method is to measure the distance between
> the rivets of 12 links and a third method is to compare the length
> of 50 links of the chain in question to a new chain of equal number
> of lengths.
I didn't see how he proposes one do this. Maybe you can explain.
> I checked 8 chains that I have here with the Park Tool CC-2 and also
> with a ruler (which might be reasonably accurate.) The chains range
> from new to excessively worn. On 6 of the chains the two methods
> seem to produce similar results. The other 2 chains are very dirty
> because they are on a used tandem I just purchased and I wouldn't
> draw any conclusion until I get those chains cleaned up.
So why are you telling us this if there are no conclusions?
> I'm going to spend some time researching this because I run
> expensive chains on our tandem and don't want to waste money by
> replacing them more or less often than necessary.
What makes your tandem chain expensive? You can make a chain of any
length with off the shelf chains of your choosing.
Jobst Brandt
Mike DeMicco
4ax.com:
> I'm going to spend some time researching this because I run expensive
> chains on our tandem and don't want to waste money by replacing them
> more or less often than necessary.
The LBS measured my chain with the Rohloff gage and told me that the
chain and cassette were worn out. The 10 speed Shimano chain had only a
few thousand miles on it, and I am careful to keep it clean and lubed. Of
course I did not believe it and measured it with a ruler when I got home.
It was hardly worn at all; well short of the commonly accepted 12-1/16"
measurement that determines a worn out chain. Anyone using the Rohloff
gage is going to be wasting a lot of money on buying new chains, IMO.
If you do a search on Google groups you will find this topic has been
discussed at length in the past.
--
Mike DeMicco <blast...@comcast.net>
HarryB
<dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>Quoting HarryB <none>:
>>http://tinyurl.com/b6hyk ). Aside from the parallax issue with a
>>wooden yardstick, I remember many years ago, when I was quite young,
>>that a project I was working on ended up poorly constructed because I
>>had used a yardstick that I got as a freebie from a hardware store. It
>>was very inaccurate compared to the Craftsman tape measure I should
>>have used.
>
>But, when you fit a new chain, you can check rulers you have lying around
>against it to see which one is accurate.
>
Yes, that does seem like a logical way to check. I'm going to do that.
>
>>I'm going to spend some time researching this because I run expensive
>>chains on our tandem and don't want to waste money by replacing them
>>more or less often than necessary.
>
>Well, I wouldn't worry too much about the sync chain...
>
I replaced the timing chain after it read 0.8 on the Park Tools CC-2
chain checker. [1] It only had about 3,500 miles on it and I thought
it was rather odd that it would wear faster than the drive chain which
read <0.25 [2] with the same mileage and maintenance as the timing
chain. I am afraid that I have recently reached the conclusion that
when I purchased the bike (new) from a reputable tandem dealer that it
had a used timing chain on it. I was completely new to the biking
scene when I purchased the bike and am afraid that I was taken
advantage of.
I do expect the new timing chain to last a lot longer than the drive
one as you imply.
[1] When I checked it with a ruler it measured 12 3/32".
[2] When I checked it with a ruler it measured 12".
Harry
HarryB
I stand corrected about the parallax. It has been a long time since I
have used a wooden yard stick because after my disastrous project I
purchased a good quality tape measure and 48" metal
ruler/straightedge.
>
> Oh pshaw! I've got enough
>promotional yard sticks from local shops that are more accurate than a
>fraction of a line width and that over 36 inches.
>
I admit that the last time I used a freebie wooden yard stick from a
hardware store was about 35 years ago. It hadn't occurred to me that
they are more accurate today.
>
> You're grasping at
>straws to possibly justify your purchase of a chain gauge of some
>type. Don't worry, no one guessed until now that you had been
>suckered.
>
As someone who is rather new to the biking scene, I have discovered
that there is a lot to learn. Although it may be obvious to a veteran
biker that commercially available chain measuring tools are not good
at accurately revealing chain wear, why would a newbie be expected to
have researched this problem in the first place?
I learned that chains wear and need to be replaced periodically. I
read that one can use a ruler or purchase a chain checker to discover
the amount of wear. Since my eyesight isn't what it used to be, I need
a magnifying glass to make sure that I would have the ruler lined up
*exactly* with the center of the pins, so decided that a device like
the Park Tool CC-2 would be easier for me to see the results than
checking with a ruler.
It has now been brought to my attention that there are differences of
opinions on how to accurately measure chain wear. I'm not grasping at
straws to justify my purchase. I simply haven't had the time to
research it enough to decide if I have been "suckered." And if I have
been "suckered" I am mature enough to accept that I made a mistake. I
don't get hung up on little things like that any more.
>
>> I think I grasp somewhat the reasoning behind measuring the distance
>> between pins rather than between rollers. But, Lennard Zinn in the
>> latest version of his book "Zinn & The Art of Road Bike Maintenance"
>> writes: "The most reliable way to see whether the chain is worn out is
>> to employ a chain-elongation gauge, such as the model make by
>> Rohloff."
>
>Well, there you have a good reason to doubt other things that Zinn
>passes along from bicycle myth and lore, some of which is worthwhile
>and some not.
>
Are you implying that I was also suckered into purchasing his book?
>
>I hope you can make up your own mind about whether
>measuring roller spacing has much to do with chain pitch.
>
Yes, I will make up my mind at some point, but right now I'm not
convinced. The theory makes sense, but my personal observation *at
this time* doesn't reveal that the Park Tool CC-2 chain checker is
wrong. Here are the results of the 6 chains I referred to in my
message:
Chain #1 CC-2: <0.25 Ruler: 12"
Chain #2 CC-2: <0.25 Ruler: 12"
Chain #3 CC-2: 0.50 Ruler: 12 1/16"
Chain #4: CC-2: 1.0+ Ruler: 12 1/4"
Chain #5: CC-2: 0.80 Ruler: 12 3/32"
Chain #6: CC-2: <0.25 Ruler: 12"
>
>> He continues that a second method is to measure the distance between
>> the rivets of 12 links and a third method is to compare the length
>> of 50 links of the chain in question to a new chain of equal number
>> of lengths.
>
Typo: that should have been "links", not "lengths".
>
>I didn't see how he proposes one do this. Maybe you can explain.
>
His explanation seems logical to me. But, since I'm a newbie maybe
this third method is also a "myth and lore". Anyway, here are his own
words, "Chain manufacturer Sachs (now SRAM) recommends replacement if
elongation is 1 percent, or 1/2 inch in 100 links (50 inches). If the
chain is off of the bike, you can hang it next to a new chain: if it
is more than a half-link longer for the same number of links, replace
it."
>> I checked 8 chains that I have here with the Park Tool CC-2 and also
>> with a ruler (which might be reasonably accurate.) The chains range
>> from new to excessively worn. On 6 of the chains the two methods
>> seem to produce similar results. The other 2 chains are very dirty
>> because they are on a used tandem I just purchased and I wouldn't
>> draw any conclusion until I get those chains cleaned up.
>
>So why are you telling us this if there are no conclusions?
>
I *did* draw a conclusion. I wrote, "On 6 of the chains the two
methods seem to produce similar results." On the other two, I don't
know if a very dirty chain will skew the readings, so I don't draw a
conclusion.
>
>> I'm going to spend some time researching this because I run
>> expensive chains on our tandem and don't want to waste money by
>> replacing them more or less often than necessary.
>
>What makes your tandem chain expensive? You can make a chain of any
>length with off the shelf chains of your choosing.
>
I chose expensive chains (Wippermann nickel plated) because I wanted
to have shiny chains. I discovered that one of the benefits of waxing
the chains is that it is very easy to keep the chains shiny, just like
I keep the rest of the bike. Unfortunately, the Wippermann drive chain
broke and it has taken some time to get Wippermann to send a free
replacement (my LBS wouldn't replace it under warranty), so I replaced
it with a Dura-Ace. Not quite as nice looking, but still a lot nicer
than the stock chain.
>
>Jobst Brandt
>
PS: I'm surprised to notice that you decided to change "HarryB" to
"Harry Bull". I hadn't expected that of you.
HarryB
<blaster186...@comcast.net> wrote:
I was caught by surprise to discover that there is controversy about
how to determine chain wear. It's just not something that I as a
newbie expected. Once again I'm learning something new. That is part
of what makes life so interesting.
Harry
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>>> As far as the accuracy of various rulers is concerned, I know for
>>> a fact that not all rulers are accurate. I was quite surprised to
>>> read that Jobst Brandt advocated that using a free yardstick from
>>> a hardware store was accurate enough for his purposes
>>> Aside from the parallax issue with a wooden yardstick, I remember
>>> many years ago, when I was quite young, that a project I was working
>>> on ended up poorly constructed because I had used a yardstick that I
>>> got as a freebie from a hardware store. It was very inaccurate
>>> compared to the Craftsman tape measure I should have used.
The parallax and accuracy of wooden yardsticks has not changed in 35
years. Your approach to the subject raises the question of why you
choose to tell how it is when you want to know who it is. This is an
old method here on wreck.bike, the extreme case being one where at
the end of an instructional essay, the writer adds, "that's right
isn't it?" when in fact the whole posting was a question in disguise.
>> There is no parallax. the ruler markings can be brought into
>> contact with the chain pins on the bicycle.
> I stand corrected about the parallax. It has been a long time since I
> have used a wooden yard stick because after my disastrous project I
> purchased a good quality tape measure and 48" metal
> ruler/straightedge.
>> Oh pshaw! I've got enough promotional yard sticks from local shops
>> that are more accurate than a fraction of a line width and that
>> over 36 inches.
> I admit that the last time I used a freebie wooden yard stick from a
> hardware store was about 35 years ago. It hadn't occurred to me that
> they are more accurate today.
>> You're grasping at straws to possibly justify your purchase of a
>> chain gauge of some type. Don't worry, no one guessed until now
>> that you had been suckered.
> As someone who is rather new to the biking scene, I have discovered
> that there is a lot to learn. Although it may be obvious to a
> veteran biker that commercially available chain measuring tools are
> not good at accurately revealing chain wear, why would a newbie be
> expected to have researched this problem in the first place?
I think it is prudent to find out what problems will confront the user
before purchasing tools. Chains are a special problem because they
are sop dirty and an affront to the owner of an expensive bicycle.
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/chain-care.html
> I learned that chains wear and need to be replaced periodically. I
> read that one can use a ruler or purchase a chain checker to discover
> the amount of wear. Since my eyesight isn't what it used to be, I need
> a magnifying glass to make sure that I would have the ruler lined up
> *exactly* with the center of the pins, so decided that a device like
> the Park Tool CC-2 would be easier for me to see the results than
> checking with a ruler.
If you can read this without a magnifying glass, you can see a 1/16"
deviation on a hard stick.
> It has now been brought to my attention that there are differences of
> opinions on how to accurately measure chain wear. I'm not grasping at
> straws to justify my purchase. I simply haven't had the time to
> research it enough to decide if I have been "suckered." And if I have
> been "suckered" I am mature enough to accept that I made a mistake. I
> don't get hung up on little things like that any more.
Time "to research" sounds pretty grave to me for deciding whether chain
length is governed by roller wear or pin wear, especially when the
effects of each have been explained.
>>> I think I grasp somewhat the reasoning behind measuring the
>>> distance between pins rather than between rollers. But, Lennard
>>> Zinn in the latest version of his book "Zinn & The Art of Road
>>> Bike Maintenance" writes: "The most reliable way to see whether
>>> the chain is worn out is to employ a chain-elongation gauge, such
>>> as the model make by Rohloff."
I take it you feel that if it is in print it must be true. At the
same time you say you understand why pin spacing is the dimension of
interest.
>> Well, there you have a good reason to doubt other things that Zinn
>> passes along from bicycle myth and lore, some of which is
>> worthwhile and some not.
> Are you implying that I was also suckered into purchasing his book?
If you read the tone of such a book and find axiomatic proclamations
with no reasoning for the claims, you should be wary of its claims. I
prefer seeing stated what the method is, why it should be used and a
test by which you can prove it to yourself.
>> I hope you can make up your own mind about whether measuring roller
>> spacing has much to do with chain pitch.
> Yes, I will make up my mind at some point, but right now I'm not
> convinced. The theory makes sense, but my personal observation *at
> this time* doesn't reveal that the Park Tool CC-2 chain checker is
> wrong. Here are the results of the 6 chains I referred to in my
> message:
> Chain #1 CC-2: <0.25 Ruler: 12"
> Chain #2 CC-2: <0.25 Ruler: 12"
> Chain #3 CC-2: 0.50 Ruler: 12 1/16"
> Chain #4: CC-2: 1.0+ Ruler: 12 1/4"
> Chain #5: CC-2: 0.80 Ruler: 12 3/32"
> Chain #6: CC-2: <0.25 Ruler: 12"
>>> He continues that a second method is to measure the distance
>>> between the rivets of 12 links and a third method is to compare
>>> the length of 50 links of the chain in question to a new chain of
>>> equal number of lengths.
How about driving a finishing nail onto the garage wall to hang the
chain and a mark 25 inches below to indicate the correct length for
fifty pitches? That way a new chain need not be sacrificed to do the
work of a yard stick. Yard sticks are free, chains cost money. This
sounds like a quaint homily rather than a practical chain measurement,
albeit one that a person who doesn't trust hard sticks might find
attractive.
> Typo: that should have been "links", not "lengths".
>>I didn't see how he proposes one do this. Maybe you can explain.
> His explanation seems logical to me. But, since I'm a newbie maybe
> this third method is also a "myth and lore". Anyway, here are his
> own words, "Chain manufacturer Sachs (now SRAM) recommends
> replacement if elongation is 1 percent, or 1/2 inch in 100 links (50
> inches). If the chain is off of the bike, you can hang it next to a
> new chain: if it is more than a half-link longer for the same number
> of links, replace it."
>>> I checked 8 chains that I have here with the Park Tool CC-2 and
>>> also with a ruler (which might be reasonably accurate.) The chains
>>> range from new to excessively worn. On 6 of the chains the two
>>> methods seem to produce similar results. The other 2 chains are
>>> very dirty because they are on a used tandem I just purchased and
>>> I wouldn't draw any conclusion until I get those chains cleaned
>>> up.
>> So why are you telling us this if there are no conclusions?
> I *did* draw a conclusion. I wrote, "On 6 of the chains the two
> methods seem to produce similar results." On the other two, I don't
> know if a very dirty chain will skew the readings, so I don't draw a
> conclusion.
I hope you realize that the ruler method is absolute in pitch
measurement while the chain checker is measuring with the assumption
that roller clearance is constant... which it is not since chains vary
from one brand to the next.
>>> I'm going to spend some time researching this because I run
>>> expensive chains on our tandem and don't want to waste money by
>>> replacing them more or less often than necessary.
>> What makes your tandem chain expensive? You can make a chain of
>> any length with off the shelf chains of your choosing.
> I chose expensive chains (Wippermann nickel plated) because I wanted
> to have shiny chains. I discovered that one of the benefits of
> waxing the chains is that it is very easy to keep the chains shiny,
> just like I keep the rest of the bike. Unfortunately, the
> Wippermann drive chain broke and it has taken some time to get
> Wippermann to send a free replacement (my LBS wouldn't replace it
> under warranty), so I replaced it with a Dura-Ace. Not quite as
> nice looking, but still a lot nicer than the stock chain.
I suppose that depends on your priorities. You might consider that
the transfer chain wears roughly proportional to the inverse square of
its sprocket size. The sprocket size defines both the angle through
which the chain articulates and under what tension it makes these
motions.
> PS: I'm surprised to notice that you decided to change "HarryB" to
> "Harry Bull". I hadn't expected that of you.
I don't like to read BS such as rulers and yard sticks being too
inaccurate to measure chain wear as an excuse for doing things the
hard way. You can posture about that but you know that is BS. What
does B stand for by the way, or is that embarrassing? We know that
jim beam is a whiskey rather than a human, although the alias is used
by a participant in this forum.
Jobst Brandt
frkr...@gmail.com
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Harry None None writes:
>
>... What
> does B stand for by the way, or is that embarrassing? We know that
> jim beam is a whiskey rather than a human, although the alias is used
> by a participant in this forum.
>
> Jobst Brandt
Jobst, calm down. Harry's new here, and he hasn't encountered your -
um, ascerbic style before, nor your dislike of anonymous posters.
Harry, welcome. Jobst is a very smart guy, but you have to get used to
his inimitable style.
- Frank Krygowski
Michael Press
HarryB <No...@none.net> wrote:
When the exact nature of chain wear is seen, and I mean
literally seen; and when the consequences of running a
worn chain are seen in worn cogs; and when the two methods
of measuring chain wear are contrasted; then there is no
controversy.
Chains wear where the pins and plates articulate. This is
seen in disassembled chains that are worn. Grooves are
seen in the pins.
<http://sheldonbrown.com/chain-life.html>
The chain pitch changes, and if it changes enough, then
the chain rollers and cogs engage in such a way that too
much force is applied on one cog resulting in accelerated
wearing on each cog as it comes around.
When the chain roller engages the cog it is the position
of the pin that determines the position of the roller.
Rollers do not measurably wear; pins do. To measure if a
chain properly engages the cogs, measure the distance
between the pins.
--
Michael Press
Lou Holtman
"Mike DeMicco" <blaster186...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9769B80E0BFC1bl...@130.133.1.4...
> HarryB <No...@none.net> wrote in news:s99uu114jtobbgfismqv2mbl60irmhagc0@
> 4ax.com:
>
> > I'm going to spend some time researching this because I run expensive
> > chains on our tandem and don't want to waste money by replacing them
> > more or less often than necessary.
>
> The LBS measured my chain with the Rohloff gage and told me that the
> chain and cassette were worn out. The 10 speed Shimano chain had only a
> few thousand miles on it, and I am careful to keep it clean and lubed. Of
> course I did not believe it and measured it with a ruler when I got home.
> It was hardly worn at all; well short of the commonly accepted 12-1/16"
> measurement that determines a worn out chain. Anyone using the Rohloff
> gage is going to be wasting a lot of money on buying new chains, IMO.
>
You are correct, the Rohloff gage doesn't measure accurate on a Shimano 10
speed chain. Much, much too pessimistic.
I found out that it measures correctly on a Campagnolo C10, C9, Connex 9
speed and a Sram PC59. Before replacing I always double check the Rohloff
measurement comparing the used chain with a new one, that is always standing
by.
Lou
John Forrest Tomlinson
>This is an
>old method here on wreck.bike, the extreme case being one where at
>the end of an instructional essay, the writer adds, "that's right
>isn't it?" when in fact the whole posting was a question in disguise.
Of course we also frequently get the situation where someone asks a
question directly and you denounce them for making a statement and
pretending it's a question....
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
Paul Kopit
>Yes, I will make up my mind at some point, but right now I'm not
>convinced. The theory makes sense, but my personal observation *at
>this time* doesn't reveal that the Park Tool CC-2 chain checker is
>wrong. Here are the results of the 6 chains I referred to in my
>message:
>
>Chain #1 CC-2: <0.25 Ruler: 12"
>Chain #2 CC-2: <0.25 Ruler: 12"
>Chain #3 CC-2: 0.50 Ruler: 12 1/16"
>Chain #4: CC-2: 1.0+ Ruler: 12 1/4"
>Chain #5: CC-2: 0.80 Ruler: 12 3/32"
>Chain #6: CC-2: <0.25 Ruler: 12"
>>
I bought a CC-2 and don't really like it. On new chain, the wear
factor seems different by brand. I went back to a steel tape measure
when the chain is on the bike. When the chain is off, either the tape
measure or hanging alongside a new chain is my method.
Mike DeMicco
frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> If there's a detriment to waxing the chain, this is it. Even my
> non-dip torch method, easy as it is, is a little too cumbersome for a
> long tour.
Doesn't wax dissolve in alcohol? Why not dissolve wax in denatured
alcohol and place in a squeeze bottle? When applied to the chain, the
dissolved solution penetrates the chain, the alcohol quickly evaporates
and the wax remains. Disclaimer: I have not tried this but remember
reading this somewhere sometime long ago.
--
Mike DeMicco <blaster186...@comcast.net>
Mike DeMicco
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Good article. As one of the writers wrote, "Since the main ingredient is
> water, I would not recommend soaking a chain in it." Frankly I am amazed
> that people would actually use water to clean a chain, it's a very bad
> idea. You can dry the outside, but water remains inside, in the worst
> possible area. You want to use a non-water based solvent such as kerosene.
You can blow the water out with compressed air or leave it out in the
hot sun to evaporate the water. I've even put it in a toaster oven,
although I wouldn't advise that if you use it for food. Water based
cleaners may cause some minor rusting, but is more environmentally
friendly than petroleum based cleaners. Kerosene leaves an oily residue.
If you use a specialty chain lube, you don't want that residue left on
the chain to interfere. Unless the petroleum based cleaner is very
clean, it really doesn't do that good of a job in getting the chain
clean anyway.
--
Mike DeMicco <blaster186...@comcast.net>
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> The LBS measured my chain with the Rohloff gage and told me that
>> the chain and cassette were worn out. The 10 speed Shimano chain
>> had only a few thousand miles on it, and I am careful to keep it
>> clean and lubed. Of course I did not believe it and measured it
>> with a ruler when I got home. It was hardly worn at all; well
>> short of the commonly accepted 12-1/16" measurement that determines
>> a worn out chain. Anyone using the Rohloff gage is going to be
>> wasting a lot of money on buying new chains, IMO.
> You are correct, the Rohloff gage doesn't measure accurate on a
> Shimano 10 speed chain. Much, much too pessimistic. I found out
> that it measures correctly on a Campagnolo C10, C9, Connex 9 speed
> and a SRAM PC59. Before replacing I always double check the Rohloff
> measurement comparing the used chain with a new one, that is always
> standing by.
So why do you go to the trouble and expense of using such a gauge? I
suppose inch graduated measuring devices are scarce in Europe but
holding a ruler next to the chain while it is on the bicycle is a
trivial exercise. Stanley steel tapes (graduated in both mm and
inches) are inexpensive while hardware store gratis yard sticks are
even less expensive locally. I suppose that doesn't seem scientific
enough for an expensive bicycle chain. Chains cost less when buying
SRAM chains in bulk as bicycle shops do.
Jobst Brandt
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> This is an old method here on wreck.bike, the extreme case being
>> one where at the end of an instructional essay, the writer adds,
>> "that's right isn't it?" when in fact the whole posting was a
>> question in disguise.
> Of course we also frequently get the situation where someone asks a
> question directly and you denounce them for making a statement and
> pretending it's a question....
Maybe you can dig one of these up and show how that was. I think you
are mistaken about the question. It's like the guys who want to tell
you how tough they are by ASKING how to keep the water in the bottle
from freezing as November rolls along, as if they really wanted to
know. The ploys used here are many and varied.
Jobst Brandt
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>>> It really isn't that big of a deal if one gets it down to a
>>> ritual: Remove chain from bike and drop in cleaner (Simple Green.)
>>> Remove from cleaner, rinse in hot water and put into deep fryer.
>> Be careful using simple green to clean your chain...
http://www.velonews.com/tech/report/articles/9216.0.html
> Good article. As one of the writers wrote, "Since the main
> ingredient is water, I would not recommend soaking a chain in it."
> Frankly I am amazed that people would actually use water to clean a
> chain, it's a very bad idea. You can dry the outside, but water
> remains inside, in the worst possible area. You want to use a
> non-water based solvent such as kerosene.
I suppose in that vein, you never ride when roads are wet. Chains run
well in water, the only problem is that when the road dries, so does
the chain and then it squeaks for lack of a lubricant. There are many
ways of drying a chain and the rusting rate is slow enough that it is
immaterial to its well being. Your admonition falls close to the
questions on how to keep chains from rusting on the bicycle, a non
problem for people who ride rather than park the bicycle outdoors.
Jobst Brandt
Lou Holtman
Like with this wax based lube I use:
sorry it is in Dutch.
Lou, using a torch? Geez give me a break.
--
Posted by news://news.nb.nu
Lou Holtman
It has nothing to do with cost or something scientific. I think it is
more convenient (I don't have to look for my glasses ie.). You use your
method, I use mine. It's no trouble at all (for me). Inch graduated
measuring devices are not scarce here in Europe except for steel rulers.
Lou
Simon Cooper
news:43f21f1b$0$58095$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> Steven Scharf writes:
>
> Your admonition falls close to the
> questions on how to keep chains from rusting on the bicycle, a non
> problem for people who ride rather than park the bicycle outdoors.
Except we rode our tandem into town on Saturday, and by the time I was done
and heading home it had a couple of inches of snow on it, and the chain was
looking fairly rusty the next morning (parked in the garage) when I went to
re-lube it...
bill
Chains wear out. cogs wear out. Non-lubed chains wear out faster. Wax
is not a lube, it is a surface protectant. When your chain starts
skipping, relace the chain and the freewheel cogset at the same time.
Tandems overload normal bicycle chains. Too much load. That is why
they break. Two people pulling on one chain. After a while, you will
notice that bicycles are not rationally engineered. They are cobbled
together, and that "standards" are merely defaults, not well thought
out.
I have broken too many chains to count, on a standard racing bike. It
is annoying. It all started when Sedisport was retired and I started
buying "Sachs" chains. So I started replacing every 5,000 miles,
whether "worn" or not. Now I ride Dura-Ace or Crampygoslow Chorus as
appropriate. Frankly I couldn't care less about the chain stretch. If
it works, it works. Just as long as it isn't breaking. And the stretch
doesn't tell you anything about fatigue life and so why bother
measuring it?
John Forrest Tomlinson
>John Forrest Tomlinson writes:
>
>>> This is an old method here on wreck.bike, the extreme case being
>>> one where at the end of an instructional essay, the writer adds,
>>> "that's right isn't it?" when in fact the whole posting was a
>>> question in disguise.
>
>> Of course we also frequently get the situation where someone asks a
>> question directly and you denounce them for making a statement and
>> pretending it's a question....
>
>Maybe you can dig one of these up and show how that was.
You did it to me. I asked about something that was probably not true
but was genuinely curious if maybe it was true, and you came back with
comments about how it was obviously untrue, and that I was spreading
myth, etc. And I think there was some random dig at some other type
of person, like the little addition you made about guys in November or
whatever.
I can't readily find that example, but below is another one
JT
In <76uc1m$ov...@hplms2.hpl.hp.com> jbra...@hpl.hp.com (Jobst Brandt)
writes:
>Travis Thom writes:
>> I used to work with someone who used linseed oil as a spoke prep.
>> when wheelbuilding. After eight years, the wheels he built for me
>> are still serviceable and the spokes stay put. I want to build some
>> wheels, and would like to try the oil. Does anyone know if I should
>> use raw or boiled linseed oil?
>That depends on whether under a full or new moon. What exactly did he
>tell you that this 'tossing of salt over the left shoulder' did for
>the wheel and how did it do this?
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org aka Jobst Brandt wrote:
> ...
> I don't like to read BS such as rulers and yard sticks being too
> inaccurate to measure chain wear as an excuse for doing things the
> hard way. You can posture about that but you know that is BS. What
> does B stand for by the way, or is that embarrassing? We know that
> jim beam is a whiskey rather than a human, although the alias is used
> by a participant in this forum.
On occasion, "jim beam's" contentions could make one think it was the
Kentucky Bourbon talking. ;)
I would be remiss if I failed to point out that
"jobst....@stanfordalumni.org" is an email address and not a
human being. ;)
--
Tom Sherman
HarryB
I decided that I wasn't too worried about wear on new chains,
especially the ones from reputable manufacturers. But, so far my
observation, based on my limited testing, is that it is quite accurate
on the 6 chains I have checked. I was especially interested in Chain
#5 because in my ignorance I decided to replace that chain based
solely on the CC-2's reading. It wasn't until I was advised that chain
checker tools are (allegedly) inaccurate that I checked it with a
ruler. And, lo and behold, the ruler confirmed what the CC-2 had
indicated, that the chain was near the end of its useful life.
I have not yet seen anyone prove that the CC-2 provides inaccurate
readings at the point where it is important - near the limits of the
usability of the chain. I'm not saying no one has, I just haven't seen
it, so I am keeping an open mind.
I make absolutely no prediction about how the CC-2 will function long
term or on other chains. But at this point in time I intend to keep it
and check for myself to see if it is bad as some here claim.
Harry
HarryB
>Harry None None writes:
>
>>>> As far as the accuracy of various rulers is concerned, I know for
>>>> a fact that not all rulers are accurate. I was quite surprised to
>>>> read that Jobst Brandt advocated that using a free yardstick from
>>>> a hardware store was accurate enough for his purposes
>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/b6hyk
>
>>>> Aside from the parallax issue with a wooden yardstick, I remember
>>>> many years ago, when I was quite young, that a project I was working
>>>> on ended up poorly constructed because I had used a yardstick that I
>>>> got as a freebie from a hardware store. It was very inaccurate
>>>> compared to the Craftsman tape measure I should have used.
>
>The parallax and accuracy of wooden yardsticks has not changed in 35
>years. Your approach to the subject raises the question of why you
>choose to tell how it is when you want to know who it is. This is an
>old method here on wreck.bike, the extreme case being one where at
>the end of an instructional essay, the writer adds, "that's right
>isn't it?" when in fact the whole posting was a question in disguise.
>
I wasn't trying to instruct anyone in anything! My original post was
about the feasibility of adding graphite to my wax. From there a
reference was made to chain measuring tools and I was surprised to
learn that some people do not regard the tool that I use as accurate.
There were a few more back and forth posts as I tried to understand
more clearly what the problem was with my tool. It appears to me that
you reached an erroneous conclusion because you jumped into the middle
of the conversation, without any regard to the context, and now accuse
me of something sinister. Your allegation is absolutely wrong.
>
>>> There is no parallax. the ruler markings can be brought into
>>> contact with the chain pins on the bicycle.
>
>> I stand corrected about the parallax. It has been a long time since I
>> have used a wooden yard stick because after my disastrous project I
>> purchased a good quality tape measure and 48" metal
>> ruler/straightedge.
>
>>> Oh pshaw! I've got enough promotional yard sticks from local shops
>>> that are more accurate than a fraction of a line width and that
>>> over 36 inches.
>
>> I admit that the last time I used a freebie wooden yard stick from a
>> hardware store was about 35 years ago. It hadn't occurred to me that
>> they are more accurate today.
>
>>> You're grasping at straws to possibly justify your purchase of a
>>> chain gauge of some type. Don't worry, no one guessed until now
>>> that you had been suckered.
>
>> As someone who is rather new to the biking scene, I have discovered
>> that there is a lot to learn. Although it may be obvious to a
>> veteran biker that commercially available chain measuring tools are
>> not good at accurately revealing chain wear, why would a newbie be
>> expected to have researched this problem in the first place?
>
>I think it is prudent to find out what problems will confront the user
>before purchasing tools. Chains are a special problem because they
>are sop dirty and an affront to the owner of an expensive bicycle.
>
>http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/chain-care.html
>
I have a shop full of tools and if I had done a bunch of research
before the purchase of each of my tools I wouldn't have time to use
them. For some reason it appears that you don't grasp the idea that
newbies simply don't know much about the subject at hand and shouldn't
be faulted for their initial ignorance. I have stated that I am a
newbie and I think that if one thoughtfully reads my posts he will
discover that I am asking questions to enhance my knowledge of the
subject about which I inquired and nothing more than that.
>
>> I learned that chains wear and need to be replaced periodically. I
>> read that one can use a ruler or purchase a chain checker to discover
>> the amount of wear. Since my eyesight isn't what it used to be, I need
>> a magnifying glass to make sure that I would have the ruler lined up
>> *exactly* with the center of the pins, so decided that a device like
>> the Park Tool CC-2 would be easier for me to see the results than
>> checking with a ruler.
>
>If you can read this without a magnifying glass, you can see a 1/16"
>deviation on a hard stick.
>
My optometrist says that with the condition of my eyes he understands
that I sometimes need a magnifying glass even though I wear bifocals.
We have discussed the possibility of trifocals, but have decided
against them for the time being because I only occasionally need to
use the magnifying glass. I didn't know that besides being a very
knowledgeable person about bicycle issues (and I say that
respectfully) you are also an expert in the field of optometry.
>
>> It has now been brought to my attention that there are differences of
>> opinions on how to accurately measure chain wear. I'm not grasping at
>> straws to justify my purchase. I simply haven't had the time to
>> research it enough to decide if I have been "suckered." And if I have
>> been "suckered" I am mature enough to accept that I made a mistake. I
>> don't get hung up on little things like that any more.
>
>Time "to research" sounds pretty grave to me for deciding whether chain
>length is governed by roller wear or pin wear, especially when the
>effects of each have been explained.
>
>>>> I think I grasp somewhat the reasoning behind measuring the
>>>> distance between pins rather than between rollers. But, Lennard
>>>> Zinn in the latest version of his book "Zinn & The Art of Road
>>>> Bike Maintenance" writes: "The most reliable way to see whether
>>>> the chain is worn out is to employ a chain-elongation gauge, such
>>>> as the model make by Rohloff."
>
>I take it you feel that if it is in print it must be true.
>
I've been around long enough to be reasonably skeptical, so I usually
do some research before a purchase of this sort. I recall that most
reviews of Zinn's book were quite favorable.
>
>At the
>same time you say you understand why pin spacing is the dimension of
>interest.
>
Indeed, I believe I now understand that. But, I am not yet convinced
that my chain checker tool will lead me astray. As I related further
down in my post, the Park Tool's chain checker I own agrees with the
ruler method when I checked 6 chains I had readily available to me.
But you (and others) argue that my chain checker tool will provide
wrong information *in theory.* Maybe so, but in my real world limited
experience it provided correct information. I guess I was skeptical of
what I read in print and actually tested what you (and others) wrote
and found out otherwise.
>
>>> Well, there you have a good reason to doubt other things that Zinn
>>> passes along from bicycle myth and lore, some of which is
>>> worthwhile and some not.
>
>> Are you implying that I was also suckered into purchasing his book?
>
>If you read the tone of such a book and find axiomatic proclamations
>with no reasoning for the claims, you should be wary of its claims. I
>prefer seeing stated what the method is, why it should be used and a
>test by which you can prove it to yourself.
>
I was under the impression that "Zinn & The Art of Road Bike
Maintenance" would be a good book for a DIYer like me who wants to fix
and maintain his own bike. In the many reviews that I read before I
purchased the book (it was actually a birthday present from my dear
stoker) I don't recall reading that Zinn passes along myths and that I
should be on the lookout for "axiomatic proclamations" which would get
me into trouble if I followed them.
As I have clearly stated, I am a newbie to the bicycling world. All I
wish to do with my tandem is spend time in the company of my lovely
wife enjoying life as we pedal around the countryside together. In
order to make that a possibility the tandem needs to be maintained and
that is what I am interested in. Since you imply that my purchase of
the above referenced book was not the best choice, which book should I
have purchased?
>
>>> I hope you can make up your own mind about whether measuring roller
>>> spacing has much to do with chain pitch.
>
>> Yes, I will make up my mind at some point, but right now I'm not
>> convinced. The theory makes sense, but my personal observation *at
>> this time* doesn't reveal that the Park Tool CC-2 chain checker is
>> wrong. Here are the results of the 6 chains I referred to in my
>> message:
>
>> Chain #1 CC-2: <0.25 Ruler: 12"
>> Chain #2 CC-2: <0.25 Ruler: 12"
>> Chain #3 CC-2: 0.50 Ruler: 12 1/16"
>> Chain #4: CC-2: 1.0+ Ruler: 12 1/4"
>> Chain #5: CC-2: 0.80 Ruler: 12 3/32"
>> Chain #6: CC-2: <0.25 Ruler: 12"
>
A couple of paragraphs above you wrote: "I prefer seeing stated what
the method is, why it should be used and a test by which you can prove
it to yourself." That is exactly what I did. I noted that you claim
that chain checker tools are inaccurate and you stated why. I tested
that theory with a particular chain checker tool and found that the
reality conflicted with the theory in this case. The theory may very
well be confirmed in other cases, I don't know. But, my conclusion is
that your theory is wrong in this particular case.
I find Chain #5 to be of special interest. A number of months ago, in
my ignorance I decided to replace that chain based solely on the
CC-2's reading. It wasn't until I was advised that chain checker tools
are (allegedly) inaccurate that I checked it with a ruler. And, lo and
behold, the ruler confirmed what the CC-2 had indicated, that the
chain was near the end of its useful life. The tool performed as
advertised.
>
>>>> He continues that a second method is to measure the distance
>>>> between the rivets of 12 links and a third method is to compare
>>>> the length of 50 links of the chain in question to a new chain of
>>>> equal number of lengths.
>
>How about driving a finishing nail onto the garage wall to hang the
>chain and a mark 25 inches below to indicate the correct length for
>fifty pitches? That way a new chain need not be sacrificed to do the
>work of a yard stick. Yard sticks are free, chains cost money. This
>sounds like a quaint homily rather than a practical chain measurement,
>albeit one that a person who doesn't trust hard sticks might find
>attractive.
>
You really seem to be hung up on your freebie yardsticks. It appears
to me that you are the one who is grasping at straws to justify your
method. Maybe it didn't occur to you that one could use the new chain
on his bike after the old one has worn out? Since we ride a couple of
$3,000+ bikes I know that keeping a spare chain (even an expensive
one) on hand is not going to be a problem for me.
What in the world does this have to do with my reasoning for
purchasing expensive chains? My priorities were first of all a chain
from a reputable manufacturer (although the Wippermann disappointed
me) and secondly a shiny chain.
>
>> PS: I'm surprised to notice that you decided to change "HarryB" to
>> "Harry Bull". I hadn't expected that of you.
>
>I don't like to read BS such as rulers and yard sticks being too
>inaccurate to measure chain wear as an excuse for doing things the
>hard way. You can posture about that but you know that is BS.
>
No, I don't know that it is BS. What I do know is that you have jumped
to a totally erroneous conclusion about me. I came here asking *in
good faith* a question about chain lubrication. In the course of the
discussion I discovered that an assumption I made (that the chain
checker tool I have will accurately measure chain wear) might not be
correct. I have a great deal of respect for your expertise in the
field of bicycles, but I'm afraid that you appear to be a poor judge
of character. And more than that, you come across as having a bone to
pick with someone and took it out on me. What a shame.
>
>What
>does B stand for by the way, or is that embarrassing? We know that
>jim beam is a whiskey rather than a human, although the alias is used
>by a participant in this forum.
>
Good night, what is your problem? I will, however, stoop to answer
your absurd question. If my memory serves me correctly, a number of
years ago I was posting a question to a ng dealing with tropical fish
keeping. My user ID at that time was Harry (which is my call name.)
Another Harry posted that people might be confused because his name
was also Harry, so I changed mine to HarryB. Why HarryB? Simple: My
name is Harry van den Berg (it's Dutch) and since I was a little child
I have used HB as my initials. HarryB just seemed like a logical way
to id myself.
>
>Jobst Brandt
>
Harry
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>>>> This is an old method here on wreck.bike, the extreme case being
>>>> one where at the end of an instructional essay, the writer adds,
>>>> "that's right isn't it?" when in fact the whole posting was a
>>>> question in disguise.
>>> Of course we also frequently get the situation where someone asks a
>>> question directly and you denounce them for making a statement and
>>> pretending it's a question....
>>Maybe you can dig one of these up and show how that was.
> You did it to me. I asked about something that was probably not
> true but was genuinely curious if maybe it was true, and you came
> back with comments about how it was obviously untrue, and that I was
> spreading myth, etc. And I think there was some random dig at some
> other type of person, like the little addition you made about guys
> in November or whatever.
> I can't readily find that example, but below is another one
I think you are confusing rude four letter words and insinuations of
dementia with the terse responses I often give to postings that are
like the frozen water bottle types, obvious fabrications.
> In <76uc1m$ov...@hplms2.hpl.hp.com> jbra...@hpl.hp.com (Jobst Brandt)
> writes:
>> Travis Thom writes:
>>> I used to work with someone who used linseed oil as a spoke prep.
>>> when wheelbuilding. After eight years, the wheels he built for me
>>> are still serviceable and the spokes stay put. I want to build
>>> some wheels, and would like to try the oil. Does anyone know if I
>>> should use raw or boiled linseed oil?
>> That depends on whether under a full or new moon. What exactly did
>> he tell you that this 'tossing of salt over the left shoulder' did
>> for the wheel and how did it do this?
Well? Linseed oil is just so much salt over the shoulder. The
question I asked ought to be a clue to what was wrong with this
picture. A reasonably built wheel requires no spoke goo to remain
true for the life of the rim. I'm sure you have read about the
invention of Wheelsmith Spoke-Prep and that it was a band-aid for
loosely machine built wheels and why machine built wheels have
consistently been too loose to retain spoke adjustment.
I'm still looking for my denunciation of someone for asking a
reasonable question. You may be less sensitive to trolls than I am.
As was said in these pages, "He doesn't suffer fools lightly."
Jobst Brandt
SMS
Well I walk when it rains too, but I don't intentionally submerge my
shoes into a bucket of water.
I really agree with what Jobst Brandt wrote, advising to clean the chain
in kerosene or a commercial solvent, to use a motorcycle chain lube for
lubrication, and to avoid wax. Not sure what he meant by "commercial
solvent" but I assume it's a non-water based solvent.
I find cleaning the chain on the bike is more effective, though it takes
several solvent changes before the solvent runs clean (though the same
is the case with soaking and agitating it). Having the links and pins in
motion through the solvent helps to get the internal dirt out.
John Forrest Tomlinson
No, it's not. It doesn't work but reasonable people *know* salt over
the shoulder is superstition. Reasonable but ignorant people (I was
in this category) who don't understand how wheels work can think that
linseed oil works. We (mistakenly) believe it has practical value.
So when we ask it is works, or even say that it works, the appropriate
response is to simply tell them it doesn't work, not to mock us by
equating a flawed understanding with superstition.
Your occasional posts where you simply post a link to your responses
to FAQs at Sheldon Browns site are terse. But sometimes you go out
of your way to make fun of people for acting a question.
[details on why spoke prep and linseed oil are not needed snipped]
You really don't understand what I'm talking about, so I'll try to
explain it again. I'm not commenting at all on the use of linseed oil
or spoke prep. I'm commenting on that fact that because someone else
doesn't understand something as well as you, you often feel the need
to claim they have some desire for superstition, rather than simply
being ignorant. Those two thigns are not the same. Step back for a
minute and think about it.
>I'm still looking for my denunciation of someone for asking a
>reasonable question. You may be less sensitive to trolls than I am.
You're mistaken if you think these people are all trolls. And if you
truly think they are trolls, just don't answer.
JT
Paul Kopit
<blaster186...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Doesn't wax dissolve in alcohol?
Parrafin doesn't dissolve well in ethanonl.
Peter Cole
> I have broken too many chains to count, on a standard racing bike. It
> is annoying. It all started when Sedisport was retired and I started
> buying "Sachs" chains. So I started replacing every 5,000 miles,
> whether "worn" or not. Now I ride Dura-Ace or Crampygoslow Chorus as
> appropriate. Frankly I couldn't care less about the chain stretch. If
> it works, it works. Just as long as it isn't breaking. And the stretch
> doesn't tell you anything about fatigue life and so why bother
> measuring it?
That's odd. I have broken a chain only once in years of cycling
(probably where I joined it badly). I weigh 230 and use the most
inexpensive chains I can find (Sachs/SRAM PC-48 usually). I use the same
chains on road & MTB, chain loads are much greater with small chainrings
(22T on MTB). Chains wear and change pitch predictably. I don't see
fatigue as an issue.
Peter Cole
>>>>>I think I grasp somewhat the reasoning behind measuring the
>>>>>distance between pins rather than between rollers. But, Lennard
>>>>>Zinn in the latest version of his book "Zinn & The Art of Road
>>>>>Bike Maintenance" writes: "The most reliable way to see whether
>>>>>the chain is worn out is to employ a chain-elongation gauge, such
>>>>>as the model make by Rohloff."
> I don't recall reading that Zinn passes along myths and that I
> should be on the lookout for "axiomatic proclamations" which would get
> me into trouble if I followed them.
Zinn is wrong, a Rohloff tool is *not* the "most reliable" way to check
chains. That is an example of one of his "axiomatic proclamations".
I use a 12" steel ruler and measure from the front edge of a pin to the
front edge of a pin 12" away. A new chain should line up perfectly on
the ruler. By the time a chain has worn enough that the ruler lines up
on the rear edge of a pin, the chain is worn out, the diameter of a pin
being approximately the allowable elongation over 12" (if you want to be
conservative you could change a bit earlier).
As for cleaning, a poster on this NG did an experiment a while back
where he cleaned half the chain an left the other half only wiped. He
didn't find any difference in wear. Despite all the claims about various
rituals, no one has taken the time to repeat the experiment. I don't
bother cleaning chains any more, myself.
As for the "dirty chain" problem, there are many solutions (for those
who are bothered) including off-the-shelf wax-based lubes like White
Lightning, which pretty much solve the cosmetic problem. If you want to
"shake & bake" or "dip & fry" chains, be my guest, but I think these
rituals are just that.
As for your tandem timing chain wearing out prematurely, I'd hesitate
before accusing the seller of stiffing you with a pre-worn chain, it may
be that the timing chain was badly adjusted (or the rings eccentrically
mounted, etc.).
If the Park tool works better for you with your eyesight problems, then
it's a worthwhile tool, but for most of us it's not a good choice since
it's $30 and not guaranteed to be more accurate (or quicker) than a
ruler -- IOW, a solution looking for a problem.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>>>>> It really isn't that big of a deal if one gets it down to a
>>>>> ritual: Remove chain from bike and drop in cleaner (Simple
>>>>> Green.) Remove from cleaner, rinse in hot water and put into
>>>>> deep fryer.
>>>> Be careful using simple green to clean your chain...
>> http://www.velonews.com/tech/report/articles/9216.0.html
>>> Good article. As one of the writers wrote, "Since the main
>>> ingredient is water, I would not recommend soaking a chain in it."
>>> Frankly I am amazed that people would actually use water to clean
>>> a chain, it's a very bad idea. You can dry the outside, but water
>>> remains inside, in the worst possible area. You want to use a
>>> non-water based solvent such as kerosene.
>> I suppose in that vein, you never ride when roads are wet. Chains
>> run well in water, the only problem is that when the road dries, so
>> does the chain and then it squeaks for lack of a lubricant. There
>> are many ways of drying a chain and the rusting rate is slow enough
>> that it is immaterial to its well being. Your admonition falls
>> close to the questions on how to keep chains from rusting on the
>> bicycle, a non problem for people who ride rather than park the
>> bicycle outdoors.
> Well I walk when it rains too, but I don't intentionally submerge my
> shoes into a bucket of water.
That may be, but the bicycle chain does not have that option. It eats
road water at a great rate as water from the front wheel strikes the
BB and splashes to the side in a steady spray. Just look at the
downtube after a ride on a wet road and note the accumulation of sand.
That isn't what the chain waxer and toothbrush cleaner visualizes.
> I really agree with what Jobst Brandt wrote, advising to clean the
> chain in kerosene or a commercial solvent, to use a motorcycle chain
> lube for lubrication, and to avoid wax. Not sure what he meant by
> "commercial solvent" but I assume it's a non-water based solvent.
Commercial solvents used in automotive parts cleaning are petroleum
based.
> I find cleaning the chain on the bike is more effective, though it
> takes several solvent changes before the solvent runs clean (though
> the same is the case with soaking and agitating it).
This also washes the derailleur idler wheels of any lubricant in their
bearings.
> Having the links and pins in motion through the solvent helps to get
> the internal dirt out.
I think you have the wrong picture in mind. The dirt inside the chain
is fine granite dust and metal powder that is not caked in place. If
you disassemble a dirty chain I think you'll see that it contains a
fine grey/black residue that is easily washed away by immersion and
sloshing the chain around in the wash tank. Caked on external dirt is
the part that is hard to dislodge and that is best done by a stiff
parts cleaning brush in a wash tank having a perforated false bottom.
Jobst Brandt
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> Well? Linseed oil is just so much salt over the shoulder.
> No, it's not. It doesn't work but reasonable people *know* salt
> over the shoulder is superstition. Reasonable but ignorant people
> (I was in this category) who don't understand how wheels work can
> think that linseed oil works. We (mistakenly) believe it has
> practical value.
> So when we ask it is works, or even say that it works, the
> appropriate response is to simply tell them it doesn't work, not to
> mock us by equating a flawed understanding with superstition.
> Your occasional posts where you simply post a link to your responses
> to FAQs at Sheldon Browns site are terse. But sometimes you go out
> of your way to make fun of people for acting a question.
I think you don't understand. As I said these posts are trolls that
have all the earmarks of telling us something the writer doesn't
understand and done in a smug manner. My response takes that issue to
task. If you look at what the person wrote, like the one about how
linseed oil made his wheels last a long time, there is a message there
that doesn't merit passing on as fact and the writer knows it.
> [details on why spoke prep and linseed oil are not needed snipped]
> You really don't understand what I'm talking about, so I'll try to
> explain it again. I'm not commenting at all on the use of linseed oil
> or spoke prep. I'm commenting on that fact that because someone else
> doesn't understand something as well as you, you often feel the need
> to claim they have some desire for superstition, rather than simply
> being ignorant. Those two things are not the same. Step back for a
> minute and think about it.
I think you don't see beyond the linseed oil. The tone of that post,
as others, is that this is the solution to some specific problem when
in fact the person writing has no evidence that it is so. Passing on
naivete as fact is bluster at best. If you like that, it's your
choice.
>> I'm still looking for my denunciation of someone for asking a
>> reasonable question. You may be less sensitive to trolls than I am.
> You're mistaken if you think these people are all trolls. And if you
> truly think they are trolls, just don't answer.
Ah yes, but the misinformation that rest of the newsgroup gets is
worth a response. That you don't see the damage these intentional and
unintentional trolls cause, is what keeps the level of BS in bicycling
high. Re-read the linseed oil item and consider what message it gave.
Jobst Brandt
HarryB
<peter...@comcast.net> wrote:
>HarryB wrote:
>>>>>>I think I grasp somewhat the reasoning behind measuring the
>>>>>>distance between pins rather than between rollers. But, Lennard
>>>>>>Zinn in the latest version of his book "Zinn & The Art of Road
>>>>>>Bike Maintenance" writes: "The most reliable way to see whether
>>>>>>the chain is worn out is to employ a chain-elongation gauge, such
>>>>>>as the model make by Rohloff."
>
>> I don't recall reading that Zinn passes along myths and that I
>> should be on the lookout for "axiomatic proclamations" which would get
>> me into trouble if I followed them.
>
>Zinn is wrong, a Rohloff tool is *not* the "most reliable" way to check
>chains. That is an example of one of his "axiomatic proclamations".
>
Didn't *you* just make an "axiomatic proclamation"? You offered no
proof that he is wrong. As a newbie to many of these discussions I'm
confused about this "axiomatic proclamation" business. One can hardly
expect an author to justify each and every statement he makes.
In reference to Zinn's book, Jobst Brandt wrote, "If you read the tone
of such a book and find axiomatic proclamations
with no reasoning for the claims, you should be wary of its claims. I
prefer seeing stated what the method is, why it should be used and a
test by which you can prove it to yourself."
Well, how about this example: Zinn also writes, without any proof,
"The distance between these rivets should be 12 inches exactly. If it
is 12 1/8 inches or greater, replace the chain..." Isn't that also an
"axiomatic proclamation"? He doesn't offer any proof for this
statement. He does explain the effects of excessive wear on the
chainrings and cogs, but doesn't explain why 12 1/8" and not, let's
say 12 1/2", is the replacement point. Has Zinn also been taken to
task for this "axiomatic proclamation", or is it that since most
people seem to agree with that statement they don't apply the same
standard as when they disagree? IOW, the "axiomatic proclamation" test
is not applied uniformly?
>
>I use a 12" steel ruler and measure from the front edge of a pin to the
>front edge of a pin 12" away. A new chain should line up perfectly on
>the ruler. By the time a chain has worn enough that the ruler lines up
>on the rear edge of a pin, the chain is worn out, the diameter of a pin
>being approximately the allowable elongation over 12" (if you want to be
>conservative you could change a bit earlier).
>
>As for cleaning, a poster on this NG did an experiment a while back
>where he cleaned half the chain an left the other half only wiped. He
>didn't find any difference in wear. Despite all the claims about various
>rituals, no one has taken the time to repeat the experiment. I don't
>bother cleaning chains any more, myself.
>
>As for the "dirty chain" problem, there are many solutions (for those
>who are bothered) including off-the-shelf wax-based lubes like White
>Lightning, which pretty much solve the cosmetic problem. If you want to
>"shake & bake" or "dip & fry" chains, be my guest, but I think these
>rituals are just that.
>
I have tried other methods of lubricating and found that overall they
are more work than the hot wax method I use to accomplish my goals.
>
>As for your tandem timing chain wearing out prematurely, I'd hesitate
>before accusing the seller of stiffing you with a pre-worn chain, it may
>be that the timing chain was badly adjusted (or the rings eccentrically
>mounted, etc.).
>
In retrospect there are other factors which lead me to this
unfortunate conclusion. I won't mention them here because they are
irrelevant to this discussion but I doubt I will ever purchase another
bike from this dealer. That will be a hardship for me since tandem
dealers are few and far between and we will have to drive hundreds of
miles to the next nearest dealer.
>
>If the Park tool works better for you with your eyesight problems, then
>it's a worthwhile tool, but for most of us it's not a good choice since
>it's $30 and not guaranteed to be more accurate (or quicker) than a
>ruler -- IOW, a solution looking for a problem.
>
I paid a lot less than that, but the price of this tool is irrelevant
- the question is about it's accuracy. As I have already indicated in
a couple of other posts, I have found that when I checked the CC-2's
readings against a ruler's, the results have been comparable. No one
has yet shown me any data which meets the "axiomatic proclamation"
standard as articulated by Jobst Brandt. IOW, I have read a bunch of
theory, but I have not read of anyone who has actually checked the
accuracy of the CC-2 against a ruler. I would welcome reviewing such a
test. Until I have seen such a test, I must draw the conclusion that
the allegation that Park Tool's CC-2 is inaccurate is an axiomatic
proclamation.
Harry
HarryB
I don't know if wax is a lubricant or a protectant, nor do I much care
about the details. What I do know is that in my limited experience, my
waxed chains last longer between waxings than other methods of
lubricating I have used. Additionally, I am getting excellent mileage
from my waxed chains. I plan on replacing my chains when they wear to
the point which is recommended to protect the cogs and chainwheels as
much as possible and don't see any need to replace the cogs and
chainwheels until they are worn.
>
>Tandems overload normal bicycle chains. Too much load. That is why
>they break. Two people pulling on one chain.
>
Can't agree. Good quality tandems are engineered to deal with the
additional load. Good quality chains apparently are perfectly capable
of handling the load of two riders, even two strong riders (which we
are not.) And AFAIK, even people who ride triples and quads use
normal drive chains.
>
>After a while, you will
>notice that bicycles are not rationally engineered. They are cobbled
>together, and that "standards" are merely defaults, not well thought
>out.
>
>I have broken too many chains to count, on a standard racing bike. It
>is annoying. It all started when Sedisport was retired and I started
>buying "Sachs" chains. So I started replacing every 5,000 miles,
>whether "worn" or not. Now I ride Dura-Ace or Crampygoslow Chorus as
>appropriate. Frankly I couldn't care less about the chain stretch. If
>it works, it works. Just as long as it isn't breaking. And the stretch
>doesn't tell you anything about fatigue life and so why bother
>measuring it?
>
I don't accept the idea that when a good quality chain breaks under
"normal" riding conditions that it is the fault of the rider(s). When
we recently broke our drive chain on a rather steep (for us) hill, I
could not get our LBS to replace it under warranty. However, dealing
directly with the importer I have gotten them to agree to replace the
chain. They of course didn't admit that the chain was defective, but
all I asked is that they replace what I allege to be a defective chain
and they agreed to do so.
Harry
HarryB
>
>jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>> Harry None None writes:
>>
>>... What
>> does B stand for by the way, or is that embarrassing? We know that
>> jim beam is a whiskey rather than a human, although the alias is used
>> by a participant in this forum.
>>
>> Jobst Brandt
>
>Jobst, calm down. Harry's new here, and he hasn't encountered your -
>um, ascerbic style before, nor your dislike of anonymous posters.
>
>
>Harry, welcome. Jobst is a very smart guy, but you have to get used to
>his inimitable style.
>
>- Frank Krygowski
>
Thanks for the welcome, Frank.
Yes, I know Jobst is a smart guy and I have had a great deal of
respect for him in the past. That has all changed based on the little
exchange I have just had with him. I no longer have much respect for
him as a person, although I will continue to have much respect for his
expertise and opinions.
He reminds me of a number of very smart and gifted people I have known
over the years. A couple of them had the ability to remember that most
of what they know is based on the work of others who preceded them.
Consequently they could be sympathetic to the plight of someone who
was new to their particular field of expertise. The others had a
"smarter than thou, and how dare you doubt me?" attitude. I learned
more from the former than the latter.
As far as being an anonymous poster, that is simply a carry over from
the older days of the usenet when many of us would provide fake email
addresses in order to avoid getting spammed as a result of data
harvesters.
Harry
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
The feldspar portion of granite usually weathers to clay minerals,
while the quartz and mica portions exhibits much less change from
chemical weathering, typically producing quartz and mica particles that
range from "sand" sized to "clay" sized [1]. Therefore, unless one is
referring to a process when abrasive or crushing mechanical processes
are forming "rock flour" from granite, the use of the term "granite
dust" is misleading.
[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain_size>.
--
Tom Sherman
Michael Press
HarryB <No...@none.net> wrote:
> Well, how about this example: Zinn also writes, without any proof,
> "The distance between these rivets should be 12 inches exactly. If it
> is 12 1/8 inches or greater, replace the chain..." Isn't that also an
> "axiomatic proclamation"? He doesn't offer any proof for this
> statement. He does explain the effects of excessive wear on the
> chainrings and cogs, but doesn't explain why 12 1/8" and not, let's
> say 12 1/2", is the replacement point. Has Zinn also been taken to
> task for this "axiomatic proclamation", or is it that since most
> people seem to agree with that statement they don't apply the same
> standard as when they disagree? IOW, the "axiomatic proclamation" test
> is not applied uniformly?
At 12" 1/8 the cogs on the cogwheels of the rear wheel are
already badly worn. Replace your chain whenever it reaches
12' 1/16. Many people will tell you that they have
prematurely worn out cogwheels by running out of
specification chains. You should do the experiment
yourself. The essence of the scientific method is
reproducibility of reported results.
My local bicycle shop (35+ years in the business) uses a
simple rule of thumb. Put on a new chain, add lubricant
when it complains, throw it away after 1000 miles.
--
Michael Press
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
So your LBS have been throwing out perfectly good chains for 35 years?
We are NOT talking about an item such as helicopter rotor blades here
where failure will probably lead to the death of the occupants.
At $30-50 per replacement chain, I will certainly not be throwing them
out at 1,000 miles when they last much longer.
--
Tom Sherman
John Forrest Tomlinson
>I think you don't understand. As I said these posts are trolls that
>have all the earmarks of telling us something the writer doesn't
>understand and done in a smug manner.
Some may be trolls. No way all are trolls -- some are just questions.
You assume since you've answered the question a zillion times that
everyone must know the answer, but a lot of people are ignorant and
lazy and have no ill will -- they're just asking a questions.
>My response takes that issue to
>task. If you look at what the person wrote, like the one about how
>linseed oil made his wheels last a long time, there is a message there
>that doesn't merit passing on as fact and the writer knows it.
>
>> [details on why spoke prep and linseed oil are not needed snipped]
>
>> You really don't understand what I'm talking about, so I'll try to
>> explain it again. I'm not commenting at all on the use of linseed oil
>> or spoke prep. I'm commenting on that fact that because someone else
>> doesn't understand something as well as you, you often feel the need
>> to claim they have some desire for superstition, rather than simply
>> being ignorant. Those two things are not the same. Step back for a
>> minute and think about it.
>
>I think you don't see beyond the linseed oil. The tone of that post,
>as others, is that this is the solution to some specific problem when
>in fact the person writing has no evidence that it is so.
So you're saying that because someone has no evidence they're
trolling? That's quite a leap. Probably most are simply ignorant. I
know I believed in the linseed oil thing because I simply didn't know
better.
> Passing on
>naivete as fact is bluster at best. If you like that, it's your
>choice.
>
>>> I'm still looking for my denunciation of someone for asking a
>>> reasonable question. You may be less sensitive to trolls than I am.
>
>> You're mistaken if you think these people are all trolls. And if you
>> truly think they are trolls, just don't answer.
>
>Ah yes, but the misinformation that rest of the newsgroup gets is
>worth a response.
The response is saying they're wrong and/or demonstrating it. Or
saying nothing if it tires you too much.
>That you don't see the damage these intentional and
>unintentional trolls cause,
Ahhhh, here we get to the meat of the issue. You think that someone
can be trolling unintentionally. The whole nature of trolling is
trying to stir up trouble. By it's very nature people can't troll
unintentionally.
HarryB
You (approvingly) cite your LBS's very unscientific method of
replacing chains after 1,000 miles of use. How do they know when a
chain has reached the 1,000 mile mark? Do they check the odometer of
each bike? And what evidence do they have that each and every chain is
worn out at the 1,000 mile point? That would become a very expensive
proposition for some riders. Even from this newbie's perspective I can
conclude quite quickly that your LBS doesn't have their customer's
best interest at heart if what you report is true. BTW, you aren't a
part owner of this LBS, are you?
What is the name of this LBS, so that others may be aware of this
practice?
Harry
Paul Kopit
>I think you have the wrong picture in mind. The dirt inside the chain
>is fine granite dust and metal powder that is not caked in place. If
>you disassemble a dirty chain I think you'll see that it contains a
>fine grey/black residue that is easily washed away by immersion and
>sloshing the chain around in the wash tank. Caked on external dirt is
>the part that is hard to dislodge and that is best done by a stiff
>parts cleaning brush in a wash tank having a perforated false bottom.
>
>Jobst Brandt
I've thought that a great amount of black stuff that appears on
chains is the rubber powder from the wearing of car tires. I think
that rubber dust is also a part of what coats the rims on a wet ride.
Oil on the bike seems to get dirty quicker around town in Los Angeles
than on roads less traveled. I did a tour in Southern Utah last fall
and got rained on. The equipment was a lot cleaner than it would have
been had I gotten wet in LosA.
Peter Cole
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 10:15:36 -0500, Peter Cole
> <peter...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>HarryB wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>I think I grasp somewhat the reasoning behind measuring the
>>>>>>>distance between pins rather than between rollers. But, Lennard
>>>>>>>Zinn in the latest version of his book "Zinn & The Art of Road
>>>>>>>Bike Maintenance" writes: "The most reliable way to see whether
>>>>>>>the chain is worn out is to employ a chain-elongation gauge, such
>>>>>>>as the model make by Rohloff."
>>
>>>I don't recall reading that Zinn passes along myths and that I
>>>should be on the lookout for "axiomatic proclamations" which would get
>>>me into trouble if I followed them.
>>
>>Zinn is wrong, a Rohloff tool is *not* the "most reliable" way to check
>>chains. That is an example of one of his "axiomatic proclamations".
>>
>
> Didn't *you* just make an "axiomatic proclamation"? You offered no
> proof that he is wrong.
I didn't (offer proof), because it seemed you had already "grasped" that
from your original statement.
The reason it's not the "most reliable" is that it doesn't measure pitch
directly -- or at least not as directly as a ruler does.
> As a newbie to many of these discussions I'm
> confused about this "axiomatic proclamation" business. One can hardly
> expect an author to justify each and every statement he makes.
Well, that depends on how much you trust the author and/or how curious
you are. If you're interested enough in chain lubrication to brew your
own lube, I would think you'd be interested in the mechanisms of chain wear.
> In reference to Zinn's book, Jobst Brandt wrote, "If you read the tone
> of such a book and find axiomatic proclamations
> with no reasoning for the claims, you should be wary of its claims. I
> prefer seeing stated what the method is, why it should be used and a
> test by which you can prove it to yourself."
>
> Well, how about this example: Zinn also writes, without any proof,
> "The distance between these rivets should be 12 inches exactly. If it
> is 12 1/8 inches or greater, replace the chain..." Isn't that also an
> "axiomatic proclamation"?
Yes.
> He doesn't offer any proof for this
> statement. He does explain the effects of excessive wear on the
> chainrings and cogs, but doesn't explain why 12 1/8" and not, let's
> say 12 1/2", is the replacement point. Has Zinn also been taken to
> task for this "axiomatic proclamation", or is it that since most
> people seem to agree with that statement they don't apply the same
> standard as when they disagree? IOW, the "axiomatic proclamation" test
> is not applied uniformly?
In this case, his "axiomatic proclamation" is correct, although he still
requires the reader to take it on faith. I would be much more happy with
the inclusion of an explanation, but then I'm an engineer who hangs
out on a technical bike news group.
> I have tried other methods of lubricating and found that overall they
> are more work than the hot wax method I use to accomplish my goals.
I'm sorry, it's hard to take that comment seriously from someone who
uses such an elaborate method.
>>As for your tandem timing chain wearing out prematurely, I'd hesitate
>>before accusing the seller of stiffing you with a pre-worn chain, it may
>>be that the timing chain was badly adjusted (or the rings eccentrically
>>mounted, etc.).
>>
>
> In retrospect there are other factors which lead me to this
> unfortunate conclusion. I won't mention them here because they are
> irrelevant to this discussion but I doubt I will ever purchase another
> bike from this dealer. That will be a hardship for me since tandem
> dealers are few and far between and we will have to drive hundreds of
> miles to the next nearest dealer.
My sympathies, but you did accuse the dealer (in your post) of being
dishonest based only on rate of chain wear (the mechanism for which you
simultaneously admitted ignorance of).
>>If the Park tool works better for you with your eyesight problems, then
>>it's a worthwhile tool, but for most of us it's not a good choice since
>>it's $30 and not guaranteed to be more accurate (or quicker) than a
>>ruler -- IOW, a solution looking for a problem.
>>
>
> I paid a lot less than that, but the price of this tool is irrelevant
> - the question is about it's accuracy. As I have already indicated in
> a couple of other posts, I have found that when I checked the CC-2's
> readings against a ruler's, the results have been comparable. No one
> has yet shown me any data which meets the "axiomatic proclamation"
> standard as articulated by Jobst Brandt. IOW, I have read a bunch of
> theory, but I have not read of anyone who has actually checked the
> accuracy of the CC-2 against a ruler. I would welcome reviewing such a
> test. Until I have seen such a test, I must draw the conclusion that
> the allegation that Park Tool's CC-2 is inaccurate is an axiomatic
> proclamation.
If you Google, you'll find several examples of people reporting the
inaccuracy of chain measurement tools. IOW, the experience has been
variable. Rulers never lie. Did Zinn even mention using a ruler?
This is a technical NG, and its archives form an important resource. You
may find the criticism overzealous, but cycling has suffered from "myths
and lore" for decades. It's a worthwhile effort to try to set the record
straight. You should temper your indignation with the realization of
your relative ignorance. I've read Zinn, I've read Brandt -- there's no
comparison. I would think you'd be grateful that a guy like him would
spend the time to try to educate you a little, rather than getting all
tweaked about it.
Sandy
Peter Cole <peter...@comcast.net> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> This is a technical NG, and its archives form an important resource.
> You may find the criticism overzealous, but cycling has suffered from
> "myths and lore" for decades.
Just to be clear, myth and lore are contrapositives.
Myth is not good.
Lore is good.
Fin.
Michael Press
<1140086736.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunset...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I pay considerably less. If someone wants to undertake the
work required to measure and clean their chain then he
will. They make it easy for people to maintain the drive
train on their bicycle. Look how much work it is to
explain maintenance of the drive train.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
HarryB <No...@none.net> wrote:
It is scientific in that it has repeatably proven
effective keeping peoples bicycles running smoothly.
-- How do I know when I have gone 1000 miles?
-- Where do you ride, and when did you last replace the
chain?
-- I ride x-y-z 5 times a week. Last year.
-- OK. That is N miles.
Sheesh! Two sharp responses as if I am advocating the
dissolution of our nation's moral fiber. It is a bicycle
chain. Do what you will. I mention it to broaden people's
thinking; that is my crime.
I quote their years in business to suggest that they
effectively serve bicyclists.
--
Michael Press
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> Passing on
>> naivete as fact is bluster at best. If you like that, it's your
>> choice.
>>>> I'm still looking for my denunciation of someone for asking a
>>>> reasonable question. You may be less sensitive to trolls than I
>>>> am.
>>> You're mistaken if you think these people are all trolls. And if
>>> you truly think they are trolls, just don't answer.
>> Ah yes, but the misinformation that rest of the newsgroup gets is
>> worth a response.
> The response is saying they're wrong and/or demonstrating it. Or
> saying nothing if it tires you too much.
>> That you don't see the damage these intentional and unintentional
>> trolls cause,
> Ahhhh, here we get to the meat of the issue. You think that someone
> can be trolling unintentionally. The whole nature of trolling is
> trying to stir up trouble. By it's very nature people can't troll
> unintentionally.
A better word for it would be that these folks have a nature of
trolling when "asking questions". On the one had they want to ask and
the other they don't want to admit not knowing, so they put forth
bluster that is in fact a troll... one that elicits a different
response than a forthright question would.
Jobst Brandt
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> I think you have the wrong picture in mind. The dirt inside the
>> chain is fine granite dust and metal powder that is not caked in
>> place. If you disassemble a dirty chain I think you'll see that it
>> contains a fine grey/black residue that is easily washed away by
>> immersion and sloshing the chain around in the wash tank. Caked on
>> external dirt is the part that is hard to dislodge and that is best
>> done by a stiff parts cleaning brush in a wash tank having a
>> perforated false bottom.
> I've thought that a great amount of black stuff that appears on
> chains is the rubber powder from the wearing of car tires. I think
> that rubber dust is also a part of what coats the rims on a wet
> ride. Oil on the bike seems to get dirty quicker around town in Los
> Angeles than on roads less traveled. I did a tour in Southern Utah
> last fall and got rained on. The equipment was a lot cleaner than
> it would have been had I gotten wet in LosA.
The rubber dust theory has been put forth for other problems but this
is the first I have heard that it makes chains black and gummy. You
ought to tell oil changers for cars about that and see what they
think. Black oily slime has been part of machined for as long as they
have been around, many of these machines never getting near a road.
As for rims, they are made of aluminum whose wear debris is dark grey.
This seems to be one of those trolls that JFT accuses me of suspecting
without cause.
Jobst Brandt
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> This is a technical NG, and its archives form an important
>> resource. You may find the criticism overzealous, but cycling has
>> suffered from "myths and lore" for decades.
> Just to be clear, myth and lore are contrapositives.
> Myth is not good.
> Lore is good.
> Fin.
Lore: traditional knowledge or belief
Myth: a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that
serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a
practice, belief, or natural phenomenon
I don't see where you get your definition or your assumption of the
value of each of these terms.
Jobst Brandt
Michael Press
"Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr> wrote:
Myth and lore are both good. Eventually they must be
examined critically; both in literature, music, and
science. Whatever the advantages of the variants, a 36
spoke wheel is a good balance of strength, reliability,
complexity, and ease of construction. Tied and soldered
spokes were good engineering, at one time, and outlived
their function in lore.
Myth and lore guide us, and quite well too, while we
explore their purpose.
--
Michael Press
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> You (approvingly) cite your LBS's very unscientific method of
>> replacing chains after 1,000 miles of use. How do they know when a
>> chain has reached the 1,000 mile mark? Do they check the odometer
>> of each bike? And what evidence do they have that each and every
>> chain is worn out at the 1,000 mile point? That would become a very
>> expensive proposition for some riders. Even from this newbie's
>> perspective I can conclude quite quickly that your LBS doesn't have
>> their customer's best interest at heart if what you report is
>> true. BTW, you aren't a part owner of this LBS, are you?
>> What is the name of this LBS, so that others may be aware of this
>> practice?
> It is scientific in that it has repeatably proven effective keeping
> peoples bicycles running smoothly.
> -- How do I know when I have gone 1000 miles?
> -- Where do you ride, and when did you last replace the
> chain?
> -- I ride x-y-z 5 times a week. Last year.
> -- OK. That is N miles.
> Sheesh! Two sharp responses as if I am advocating the dissolution of
> our nation's moral fiber. It is a bicycle chain. Do what you will. I
> mention it to broaden people's thinking; that is my crime.
> I quote their years in business to suggest that they effectively
> serve bicyclists.
Watch it! You are responding to HarryB None none, who claims to be a
beginner and one new to the newsgroup, as in:
>> As someone who is rather new to the biking scene, I have discovered
>> that there is a lot to learn. Although it may be obvious to a
>> veteran biker that commercially available chain measuring tools are
>> not good at accurately revealing chain wear, why would a newbie be
>> expected to have researched this problem in the first place?
From the start I found the style a classic pseudo troll and now I see
he has take his cues from the alcoholic one, the Frenchman ? and other
"Zap I got you" writers on this newsgroup. I is becoming clear that
Mr. None none is a troll as I first suspected.
Jobst Brandt
frkr...@gmail.com
Michael Press wrote:
>
> Sheesh! Two sharp responses as if I am advocating the
> dissolution of our nation's moral fiber. It is a bicycle
> chain.
Hmm. Perhaps a nation's moral fiber is held together by its bicycle
chains! That would explain a lot about America. Not enough bicycles.
;-)
- Frank Krygowski
frkr...@gmail.com
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
>
> From the start I found the style a classic pseudo troll and now I see
> he has take his cues from the alcoholic one, the Frenchman ? and other
> "Zap I got you" writers on this newsgroup. I is becoming clear that
> Mr. None none is a troll as I first suspected.
I disagree.
- Frank Krygowski
Sandy
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org <jobst....@stanfordalumni.org> a
Now you edit dictionaries ?
Sandy
with the shrink ? This can be treated, though not cured.
Sandy
news:jack-2F4AC8.1...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com,
Michael Press <ja...@abc.net> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
I guess I had to be explicit and indicate that it is as they refer to this
kind of forum and line of thought.
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunset...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > At $30-50 per replacement chain, I will certainly not be throwing them
> > out at 1,000 miles when they last much longer.
>
Where can I get a quality 300 link 9-speed chain for less than $30?
--
Tom Sherman
HarryB
<peter...@comcast.net> wrote:
When one is rather new to a complex activity such as biking, the
information available can be overwhelming. As I mentioned before, I
read many reviews from various sources and my conclusion was that
overall Zinn's book was an excellent one on general bicycle
maintenance. I didn't expect him to infallible, but neither do I have
the time nor expertise to research each and every recommendation he
makes.
>
>If you're interested enough in chain lubrication to brew your
>own lube, I would think you'd be interested in the mechanisms of chain wear.
>
No, I hadn't given any thought as to the mechanisms of chain wear
until this particular thread. I know that something mechanical like a
chain logically wears and I was dissatisfied with the method of
lubrication that had been recommended to me by the LBS. I subscribe to
a tandem list and looked to some of the more reputable names on that
list for an answer to the lubrication issue. I discovered that two of
the most reputable persons on that list wax their chains and their
reasons coincided with mine. I communicated with them privately about
some details and then tried their methods. I discovered that not only
was it not as much work as is often claimed, it was overall less work
than the method recommended by the LBS.
>
>> In reference to Zinn's book, Jobst Brandt wrote, "If you read the tone
>> of such a book and find axiomatic proclamations
>> with no reasoning for the claims, you should be wary of its claims. I
>> prefer seeing stated what the method is, why it should be used and a
>> test by which you can prove it to yourself."
>>
>> Well, how about this example: Zinn also writes, without any proof,
>> "The distance between these rivets should be 12 inches exactly. If it
>> is 12 1/8 inches or greater, replace the chain..." Isn't that also an
>> "axiomatic proclamation"?
>
>Yes.
>
>> He doesn't offer any proof for this
>> statement. He does explain the effects of excessive wear on the
>> chainrings and cogs, but doesn't explain why 12 1/8" and not, let's
>> say 12 1/2", is the replacement point. Has Zinn also been taken to
>> task for this "axiomatic proclamation", or is it that since most
>> people seem to agree with that statement they don't apply the same
>> standard as when they disagree? IOW, the "axiomatic proclamation" test
>> is not applied uniformly?
>
>In this case, his "axiomatic proclamation" is correct, although he still
>requires the reader to take it on faith. I would be much more happy with
> the inclusion of an explanation, but then I'm an engineer who hangs
>out on a technical bike news group.
>
Ok, so one "axiomatic proclamation" is incorrect in your opinion while
another "axiomatic proclamation" is correct, also in your opinion. And
a newbie, who simply wants to maintain his bike, is criticized for not
doing an in-depth research on each and every "axiomatic proclamation".
This *newbie* doesn't have the ability nor time to verify each and
every "axiomatic proclamation" that he comes across in a reputable
book.
And then when I read "axiomatic proclamations" from experts who claim
that all chain wear measuring tools are inaccurate, but not one of
them has said that they have checked my particular tool, even though
they have condemned it, well, it leaves me skeptical.
>
>> I have tried other methods of lubricating and found that overall they
>> are more work than the hot wax method I use to accomplish my goals.
>
>I'm sorry, it's hard to take that comment seriously from someone who
>uses such an elaborate method.
>
I still don't understand what is so elaborate about waxing and I've
been doing it for about a year. It takes me between 1/2 hour and 45
minutes to do both chains of the tandem once every 500 to maybe 700
miles. While the chains are soaking or cooking I'm free to do other
bike maintenance, so my actual hands-on time is much less. And if we
run into a rainstorm I have to clean the complete bike anyway and so
the waxing is done while I'm cleaning the bike. I always have the
cleanest chains around and my lovely stoker *never* gets a chain
tattoo.
>
>>>As for your tandem timing chain wearing out prematurely, I'd hesitate
>>>before accusing the seller of stiffing you with a pre-worn chain, it may
>>>be that the timing chain was badly adjusted (or the rings eccentrically
>>>mounted, etc.).
>>>
>>
>> In retrospect there are other factors which lead me to this
>> unfortunate conclusion. I won't mention them here because they are
>> irrelevant to this discussion but I doubt I will ever purchase another
>> bike from this dealer. That will be a hardship for me since tandem
>> dealers are few and far between and we will have to drive hundreds of
>> miles to the next nearest dealer.
>
>My sympathies, but you did accuse the dealer (in your post) of being
>dishonest based only on rate of chain wear (the mechanism for which you
>simultaneously admitted ignorance of).
>
I don't think that what I wrote implied, nor was meant to imply, that
the chain wear issue was the only reason I reached that conclusion.
What I wrote was, "I am afraid that I have recently reached the
conclusion that when I purchased the bike (new) from a reputable
tandem dealer that it had a used timing chain on it. I was completely
new to the biking scene when I purchased the bike and am afraid that I
was taken advantage of."
I'll elaborate: When we purchased the bike the dealer told me that
chains need to be lubricated and that they wear out. He said that the
chains should last quite a few thousand miles and I need not be
concerned about wear for quite a while. (Remember, we're newbies who
wouldn't be expected to ride any great distances at first.) After a
while I purchased the Park Tool chain checker and discovered that
while the drive chain showed very little wear (~0.25), the timing
chain was, if memory serves me correctly, at about 0.8. (The Park Tool
CC-2 chain checker notes that a reading of 0.25 - 0.5 is considered a
new chain while a reading of <=1.0 indicaates that it is time to
replace the chain.) (In fact, I mentioned this oddity about the timing
chain in a post to this ng just about a year ago.) I then began a
search for new chains for the bike because I thought the timing chain
was near the end of its life. Having discovered how wonderfully clean
a waxed chain is, I decided that I wanted very shiny chains. I also
posted a question to this ng about this.
I ended up putting more miles on the bike before replacing the chains,
but the timing chain never wore any further than when I first checked
it with the chain tool. (That is one of the advantages of my chain
tool - it is very easy to see the progress of chain wear.) Eventually
I replaced both chains and forgot about why the timing chain had worn
so much faster than the drive chain. But, this discussion reminded me
of that issue again when I checked that particular chain with a ruler
and suddenly remembered something else about that chain that I had
forgotten about. Soon after we purchased the bike, I discovered that
the timing chain was very rusty, although the drive chain wasn't
rusted at all. Both chains were good quality chains (Shimano) and
since they were on the same bike they had been subject to the same
conditions.
These two observations, coupled with other issues totally unrelated to
chains have lead me to the unfortunate conclusion I mentioned.
>
>>>If the Park tool works better for you with your eyesight problems, then
>>>it's a worthwhile tool, but for most of us it's not a good choice since
>>>it's $30 and not guaranteed to be more accurate (or quicker) than a
>>>ruler -- IOW, a solution looking for a problem.
>>>
>>
>> I paid a lot less than that, but the price of this tool is irrelevant
>> - the question is about it's accuracy. As I have already indicated in
>> a couple of other posts, I have found that when I checked the CC-2's
>> readings against a ruler's, the results have been comparable. No one
>> has yet shown me any data which meets the "axiomatic proclamation"
>> standard as articulated by Jobst Brandt. IOW, I have read a bunch of
>> theory, but I have not read of anyone who has actually checked the
>> accuracy of the CC-2 against a ruler. I would welcome reviewing such a
>> test. Until I have seen such a test, I must draw the conclusion that
>> the allegation that Park Tool's CC-2 is inaccurate is an axiomatic
>> proclamation.
>
>If you Google, you'll find several examples of people reporting the
>inaccuracy of chain measurement tools. IOW, the experience has been
>variable. Rulers never lie. Did Zinn even mention using a ruler?
>
Yes he did and I quoted that in one of my posts.
>
>This is a technical NG, and its archives form an important resource. You
>may find the criticism overzealous, but cycling has suffered from "myths
>and lore" for decades. It's a worthwhile effort to try to set the record
>straight. You should temper your indignation with the realization of
>your relative ignorance. I've read Zinn, I've read Brandt -- there's no
>comparison. I would think you'd be grateful that a guy like him would
>spend the time to try to educate you a little, rather than getting all
>tweaked about it.
>
I am well aware of my relative ignorance - that is why I ask
questions. I am not indignant at all, in fact I’m somewhat amused by
some of the posts.
But really, Brandt sure got carried away when he tried to justify his
preferred method (a freebie yardstick). He claimed to know more about
my eyesight than I or my optometrist! And he then seemed to grasp at
straws when he tried to discredit Zinn's third method for checking
chain wear (comparing the length of the chain in question to a new
chain's lenght.) Brandt wrote, "How about driving a finishing nail
onto the garage wall to hang the chain and a mark 25 inches below to
indicate the correct length for fifty pitches? That way a new chain
need not be sacrificed to do the work of a yard stick. Yard sticks
are free, chains cost money. This sounds like a quaint homily rather
than a practical chain measurement, albeit one that a person who
doesn't trust hard sticks might find attractive."
The only thing I got "tweaked" about with Brandt is that he alleged
that I had a sinister motive for posting and that he resorted to name
calling. The first is totally wrong and the second is childish.
As I have clearly stated, I have a high regard for his expertise in
the bicycling world, but his false accusation and petty nit-picking is
a shame for someone of his talent.
Harry
HarryB
I can attest that what John is saying here is absolutely true in my
case. Remember, my initial question was about the feasibility of
adding graphite to my wax. I meant absolutely nothing other than
*exactly* what I wrote. Anyone with an open mind can see in my
responses that I was not attempting to steer the discussion in any
particular direction.
When the discussion shifted to allegations that my method of
determining chain wear was inaccurate, I simply responded in a
straightforward manner because it had never occurred to me that the
tool I had purchased might, in fact, not be accurate. Was I being
defensive? Of course! Did I have any other motive than to try to
discover why my tool supposedly didn't do what it was advertised to
do? No.
Remember, Jobst, that it was you who was the first (and only) person
to allege a sinister motive on my part. And you even went further by
resorting to name calling. (I can easily handle name calling, but have
always considered it childish.) Since I read rbt only occasionally
(and have posted only a couple of questions) I am not aware that you
might have a beef with some other people. Had you done a search for
other questions or comments that I have posted to this ng (or others),
you might have discovered that my questions are quite straightforward.
FWIW, I intend to post another question here quite soon. It, like my
last question, will be straightforward and will be posted because I
don't know the answer. If you discover something sinister it will have
been created in your own mind for purposes that only you know.
Harry
SMS
> I still don't understand what is so elaborate about waxing and I've
> been doing it for about a year.
Nothing is elaborate about it, it's simply unnecessary and ineffective.
Peter Cole
> Ok, so one "axiomatic proclamation" is incorrect in your opinion while
> another "axiomatic proclamation" is correct, also in your opinion. And
> a newbie, who simply wants to maintain his bike, is criticized for not
> doing an in-depth research on each and every "axiomatic proclamation".
> This *newbie* doesn't have the ability nor time to verify each and
> every "axiomatic proclamation" that he comes across in a reputable
> book.
>
> And then when I read "axiomatic proclamations" from experts who claim
> that all chain wear measuring tools are inaccurate, but not one of
> them has said that they have checked my particular tool, even though
> they have condemned it, well, it leaves me skeptical.
Good luck with your biking, Harry.
HarryB
wrote:
I didn't say that waxing chains is elaborate, I was responding to
someone who claimed it was.
I tried other methods and found that they didn't meet my criteria for
chain maintenance as well as waxing does. At some point in the future
I may find a method that does a better job than waxing and if that is
the case I will change to that method. I have no stake in this issue
other than what works for me.
If you tried waxing and found that it was "unnecessary and
ineffective" then that is fine with me. If you haven't tried it, why
are you trying to convince me of something that you don't know for a
fact is "unnecessary and ineffective"? IOW, what stake do you have in
this issue?
I'm curious to know why you are negative about chain waxing,
especially if it is based on first hand experience. If it is just your
opinion, gleaned from other's opinions who may have gotten their
opinion from others who heard from someone who may have tried it...
Well, in that case you don't really expect me to consider it
seriously, do you?
Harry
SMS
Following up on my own post, chain waxing reminds me of what some people
do for their cars, using what they believe are superior products, that
are in fact lousy products, i.e. those expensive air filters that you
have to spray with oil to actually make them filter as well as paper
filters. The same people often engage in "recreational oil changing"
changing their oil far, far more often than necessary because they
believe that their still back in the 1960's when everyone used
non-detergent motor oil with no additives that keep the dirt in
suspension until it is trapped by the filter.
The best thing you can do now is to gracefully abandon the waxing
regimen, and revert to a non-water based solvent, and either 30W oil
(NOT 10W30), or better yet, chain oil. All of this is available at low cost.
frkr...@gmail.com
Harry, you'll find that SMS (aka Steven M. Scharf) specializes in
authoritative proclamations, usually with a total lack of factual
evidence. He has (no exaggeration!) proclaimed himself to be a
"world's greatest authority" on several issues that are frequently
discussed here. Based on those proclamation alone, he feels there is
no need for factual evidence. In fact, he's probably never tried wax
lubrication.
The idea that wax lubrication of chains is "ineffective" is belied by
the several members of this community that have been doing it for
years, myself included.
It's certainly not the only choice. Others may ride in different
conditions, or otherwise have different priorities. But for me, it's
_less_ hassle overall than typical liquid lubricants. Admittedly, my
method of application is somewhat different, but that's relatively
unimportant.
Also, the fact that White Lightning (and others) have tried to
duplicate it in a bottle system indicates others must see enough
advantages to invest in marketing liquid imitations.
As they say: Illegitimi Non Carborundum ;-)
- Frank Krygowski
dvt
> jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>> I is becoming clear that
>> Mr. None none is a troll as I first suspected.
>
> I disagree.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
I'm with Frank.
--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu
Paul Kopit
>The rubber dust theory has been put forth for other problems but this
>is the first I have heard that it makes chains black and gummy. You
>ought to tell oil changers for cars about that and see what they
>think. Black oily slime has been part of machined for as long as they
>have been around, many of these machines never getting near a road.
>As for rims, they are made of aluminum whose wear debris is dark grey.
>
>This seems to be one of those trolls that JFT accuses me of suspecting
>without cause.
>
>Jobst Brandt
Foolishly, I rarely use sunscreen but I've used the sports type
sunscreen, meaning the type that does't sweat off easily. I think it
has petrolatum carrier instead of a polyethylene glycol base. After
the ride, when I wiped my legs, black stuff came off. Again, I
hypothesize that this is the rubber road dust.
I don't really know what a troll is in a newsgroup. I have hidden
motive for posting other than being a participant in the newsgroup.
My experience in email messaging dates back to mid '80s when I was a
sysop of one of the larger bbs, 'Software Society". I had one of the
early registration numbers on Compuserve and participated in the
bicycling forum there. I did Arpanet as well. If I'm doing the
communication here wrong, please let me know what is offensive.