My adventures in chain waxing: goals, reviews, suggestions...

[MikeD]

Would 10g PTFE per 500g wax be fine for a start? Just asking from previous experience of early wax adopters...i could even not use it as its just less than $10 down the drain.

Friction Facts published their formula after some serious testing:
1lb paraffin
5g PTFE
1g MoS2

Source: https://www.bikeradar.com/news/friction ... e-formula/

It should be 0.7 watts more efficient (at 250w, 90rpm) than plain paraffin:
Source: https://cyclingtips.com/2020/08/how-to- ... dless-faq/

It's hard to believe that tiny amount of PTFE and MoS2 makes any difference. The hot additive now is WS2 anyway.

[TobinHatesYou]

It's hard to believe that tiny amount of PTFE and MoS2 makes any difference. The hot additive now is WS2 anyway.

More isn’t better… it’s worse. Also WS2 on its own isn’t any good either. It needs some amount of ZDDP to prevent it from oxidizing and ruining your homebrew. I haven’t figured out the correct ratio. It’s better to be on the safe side and use too much ZDDP, but it’s going to negate those minute gains in efficiency since it’s pretty viscous stuff.

My recommendation is still to use nothing but food grade paraffin unless you ride in wet conditions…in which case you’ll want to experiment with substance/oils that will change the consistency of the wax and make it a better surface protectant.

[tleo]

Immersive waxing (I use Silca's) is not comparable with Squirt. Squirt still feels very sticky and attracks a lots of dirt. The chain will become a grey sticky mess after a while. That's my experience with Squirt. Immersive wax is fantastic.

That was my experience also. I've been waxing for years but last year decided to give Squirt a try for yucks. Within a few rides I knew it wasn't for me as my chain was a gunky mess. So back to waxing. Never have looked back and probably will never return to conventional lubes. I run my rode bike chains 250 miles and mtn bike 125 miles. Have four chains for each bike and rotate through them then wax all 4 chains at once which doesn't take much longer than just waxing one.

Caveat, I don't ride in the rain and live in a very dry, dusty high desert area. Conditions where waxing shines since it doesn't have to contend with water and doesn't pick up dust/dirt, especially on the mountain bike.

[mgrl]

Also WS2 on its own isn’t any good either. It needs some amount of ZDDP to prevent it from oxidizing and ruining your homebrew.

I thought micro WS2 was stable (Sliney 1963, etc). It's monolayers and other nanostructures that are unstable in ambient conditions (Gao 2016, Kotsakidis 2019, etc). Nobody's using WS2 monolayers in chain wax.

[Raimundo]

Raimundo, as Lakal provided additional context to what I’ve been saying all along, whether you add these lubricious solids comes down to how much you value <1W recovered from 250W input.

If you use a sane amount of 3 micron PTFE, your homebrew will probably be no faster than straight paraffin. If you use too much 1.6 micron or finer, it will clump inside the rollers and almost surely be less efficient than straight paraffin.

PTFE is not recyclable and very toxic byproducts are used to make it. If you are determined to buy some, I would check with a piano shop or piano tuner.

Thanks.

Indeed, 0.7w are peanuts.... Starting to think on only adding the Moly, since i already have it, and i see no other use for it now...

[TobinHatesYou]

I thought micro WS2 was stable (Sliney 1963, etc). It's monolayers and other nanostructures that are unstable in ambient conditions (Gao 2016, Kotsakidis 2019, etc). Nobody's using WS2 monolayers in chain wax.

Well Silca claims to be using nanoscale WS2 and is also definitely using ZDDP in its formula. Micro WS2 should be no better than MoS2 in this situation.

[mgrl]

As an oil additive, zddp makes ws2 more effective regardless of any other effects so there's an argument for it anyway but this is getting increasingly complicated for marginal benefit.

[Raimundo]

from what i read at the time the advantage of WS2 over Mos2 was in a higher temperature environment, as in internal combustion engines.
i don't think it has an edge over Moly when talking bicycle chains...

[TobinHatesYou]

from what i read at the time the advantage of WS2 over Mos2 was in a higher temperature environment, as in internal combustion engines.
i don't think it has an edge over Moly when talking bicycle chains...

Well and the viscosity of ZDDP is fairly inconsequential in a car engine. Preservation of sliding surfaces > miniscule efficiency gains in this case.

[musiclover]

Raimundo, as Lakal provided additional context to what I’ve been saying all along, whether you add these lubricious solids comes down to how much you value <1W recovered from 250W input.

If you use a sane amount of 3 micron PTFE, your homebrew will probably be no faster than straight paraffin. If you use too much 1.6 micron or finer, it will clump inside the rollers and almost surely be less efficient than straight paraffin.

PTFE is not recyclable and very toxic byproducts are used to make it. If you are determined to buy some, I would check with a piano shop or piano tuner.

Thanks.

Indeed, 0.7w are peanuts.... Starting to think on only adding the Moly, since i already have it, and i see no other use for it now...

Please don't add Moly, it is dirty stuff that generates metal wear in chain.
Difference with and without PTFE is not 0.7W as discussed above (we do not know what it is as 1/10 PTFE/paraffin lube has not been tested). Even if it was, it is is not just about W difference. It is hard to source and expensive, that's why people try to justify for themselves why they should not get it. You can source it to Europe from Chinese selling platforms.

[Lakal]

Raimundo, as Lakal provided additional context to what I’ve been saying all along, whether you add these lubricious solids comes down to how much you value <1W recovered from 250W input.

If you use a sane amount of 3 micron PTFE, your homebrew will probably be no faster than straight paraffin. If you use too much 1.6 micron or finer, it will clump inside the rollers and almost surely be less efficient than straight paraffin.

PTFE is not recyclable and very toxic byproducts are used to make it. If you are determined to buy some, I would check with a piano shop or piano tuner.

Thanks.

Indeed, 0.7w are peanuts.... Starting to think on only adding the Moly, since i already have it, and i see no other use for it now...

Please don't add Moly, it is dirty stuff that generates metal wear in chain.
Difference with and without PTFE is not 0.7W as discussed above (we do not know what it is as 1/10 PTFE/paraffin lube has not been tested). Even if it was, it is is not just about W difference. It is hard to source and expensive, that's why people try to justify for themselves why they should not get it. You can source it to Europe from Chinese selling platforms.

According to Oz.
Jason Smith from Friction Facts and ZFC (Adam) tends to disagree: https://zerofrictioncycling.com.au/wp-c ... -Video.pdf (page 3)

[mgrl]

Please don't add Moly, it is dirty stuff that generates metal wear in chain.

This claim alone shows that the guy is not to be trusted. MoS2 is an extremely common dry lubricant and would not be used if it caused metal wear.

The guy is a quack, who leaps to conclusions from flimsy evidence because of his preconceptions. Pure pseudoscience.

[musiclover]

According to Oz.
Jason Smith from Friction Facts and ZFC (Adam) tends to disagree: https://zerofrictioncycling.com.au/wp-c ... -Video.pdf (page 3)

He did not test 1/10 PTFE/paraffin.
MSW just sell overpriced paraffin.
page 4 of that document "simply use mspeedwax as per instructions and the difference over time re cleanliness is night and day, as will be the wear rates and low friction running."
They are not interested in testing paraffin with PTFE mix... I wonder, why?.. As per that document they have thousands of customers, the business is going strong. Probably, just don't want to waste their time.

[musiclover]

Please don't add Moly, it is dirty stuff that generates metal wear in chain.

This claim alone shows that the guy is not to be trusted. MoS2 is an extremely common dry lubricant and would not be used if it caused metal wear.

The guy is a quack, who leaps to conclusions from flimsy evidence because of his preconceptions. Pure pseudoscience.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. ... ode=utrb19

The abrasiveness of molybdenum disulfide hat been studied on a Modified LFW-1 Tester Tester. Test rings, coated with a special banded solid lubricant, were rotated under load against uncoated, highly polished, steel test blocks. After each test, the block surface roughness was measured using an electronic surface comparator. Results indicate that randomly oriented platelets of MoS2 embedded in a resin, can rapidly cause severe damage to hard metal surfaces, even under relatively light loads. It Was found that run-in is effective in reducing surface damage and that in some cases the effect may he enhanced by burnishing prior to test. Burnishing was found to be effective in inhibiting blister formation.

Some conclusions are drawn regarding the effects of surface orientation of MoS2 particles. These conclusions are substantiated by X-ray diffraction studies, and several scanning electron photo micrographs.

[mgrl]

Please don't add Moly, it is dirty stuff that generates metal wear in chain.

This claim alone shows that the guy is not to be trusted. MoS2 is an extremely common dry lubricant and would not be used if it caused metal wear.

The guy is a quack, who leaps to conclusions from flimsy evidence because of his preconceptions. Pure pseudoscience.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. ... ode=utrb19

The abrasiveness of molybdenum disulfide hat been studied on a Modified LFW-1 Tester Tester. Test rings, coated with a special banded solid lubricant, were rotated under load against uncoated, highly polished, steel test blocks. After each test, the block surface roughness was measured using an electronic surface comparator. Results indicate that randomly oriented platelets of MoS2 embedded in a resin, can rapidly cause severe damage to hard metal surfaces, even under relatively light loads. It Was found that run-in is effective in reducing surface damage and that in some cases the effect may he enhanced by burnishing prior to test. Burnishing was found to be effective in inhibiting blister formation.

Some conclusions are drawn regarding the effects of surface orientation of MoS2 particles. These conclusions are substantiated by X-ray diffraction studies, and several scanning electron photo micrographs.

Oh so he busted out the scanning electron microscope to check for microscopic scratches in the chain surface after using a resin-bonded MoS2 lubricant? Give me a break.

The paper clearly states the conditions that the scratches apply in - which aren't present here or in most MoS2 use - and even if they were, the "light load run-in" that they suggest as a solution is basically just "go ride your bike" because of the scale of the forces involved (at 90RPM, the light load would correspond to around 200-300W depending on your cranks).