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

Back by popular demand, the general all-things Road forum!

Moderator: robbosmans

bobones
Posts: 1271
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2013 11:19 am

by bobones

Adam sells race chains costing up to $350 (AU). Jason sells jockey pulleys at $400, Josh sells track pumps costing $475. These guys are all about selling premium products to cyclists and maximizing their profits. PTFE is an expensive ingredient so it's no wonder the commercial brands limit their use of it.

How can 1:500 ratio of PTFE have any effect whatsoever? From my perspective, 1:10 sounds far less ludicrous that 1:500, and all this talk of clumping and its negative effects on friction is purely suposition.

It would be interesting to see ZFC test 100% high quality paraffin wax versus 1:10 PTFE of same wax. Biting the hand that feeds you comes to mind though.

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



mgrl
Posts: 340
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2020 12:49 am

by mgrl

"More = better than" is not a good argument for things like lubrication. You should already have experience of a situation where using too much of something is bad - regular chain lube, where the best quantity is pretty low, and the chain wears more quickly the more you have.

User avatar
musiclover
Posts: 494
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2019 11:58 pm

by musiclover

mgrl wrote:
Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:52 am
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).
Some creative interpritation of the study to suit your claims just by reading an abstract of it? Bravo.
mgrl wrote:
Mon Sep 13, 2021 12:11 pm
"More = better than" is not a good argument for things like lubrication. You should already have experience of a situation where using too much of something is bad - regular chain lube, where the best quantity is pretty low, and the chain wears more quickly the more you have.
No one has said that. It is a very popular demagoguery trick when you claim something ridiculous on other person's behalf and than gloriously bust it.
Oz stated that if one adds more than 10% of PTFE the performance decreases.
I have retired from this forum, not wasting any more time here.

mgrl
Posts: 340
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2020 12:49 am

by mgrl

musiclover wrote:
Mon Sep 13, 2021 12:26 pm
mgrl wrote:
Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:52 am
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).
Some creative interpritation of the study to suit your claims just by reading an abstract of it? Bravo.
No, I read the full text.
text2.png
My post is paraphrasing conclusions 1, 2, 3 and 6.

User avatar
musiclover
Posts: 494
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2019 11:58 pm

by musiclover

mgrl wrote:
Mon Sep 13, 2021 12:45 pm
No, I read the full text.

text2.png

My post is paraphrasing conclusions 1, 2, 3 and 6.
What made you think that a sprint from a start of a freshly waxed chain is a light run in?
Also, they state that abrasion can be reduced by a run in, not eliminated.

But most importantly, it proves the point demonstrated by Oz in his video - Mos2 can cause abrasion.
I have retired from this forum, not wasting any more time here.

mgrl
Posts: 340
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2020 12:49 am

by mgrl

musiclover wrote:
Mon Sep 13, 2021 12:58 pm
mgrl wrote:
Mon Sep 13, 2021 12:45 pm
No, I read the full text.

text2.png

My post is paraphrasing conclusions 1, 2, 3 and 6.
What made you think that a sprint from a start of a freshly waxed chain is a light run in?
What on earth are you talking about (this applies to the whole post tbh, but this bit in particular).

I don't know why I have to say this but the physical state something is in changes the physical properties, and causing microscopic scratches to something is not the same as causing metal flakes - the flakes are orders of magnitude bigger.

If the damage was that obvious and that consistent it would have been seen by others. On the other hand, we know the effect of running a waxed chain long after the wax has been removed - metal on metal with no lubricant will cause significant damage. Parsimony suggests that Oz had not in fact found a hitherto unknown problem with one of the most commonly used and highly studied lubricants and is in fact just terrible at running experiments.

bobones
Posts: 1271
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2013 11:19 am

by bobones

Where's the comparative data for food grade wax on its own versus same wax with 1:10 PTFE versus 1:500 PTFE versus MSW? That's right, there's none because the great lube testing lab at ZFC hasn't even bothered to test just plain paraffin wax as a control! Probably too busy selling chains at $300 and tubs of lube at $150 :roll:
Last edited by bobones on Mon Sep 13, 2021 4:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

joshatsilca
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2019 4:52 pm

by joshatsilca

If we look at the full FrictionFacts data set (from prior to the CeramicSpeed purchase) we see:

Straight Paraffin: 4.75w
Squirt (warm immersion application): 4.0w
Molten Speed Wax: 4.4
Runaway Hot Tub: 4.45
MSW with race powder: 4.0

I don't have Jason's data for development of his recipe (which ultimately became MSW) but I knew him well when he was homebrewing and testing hot wax blends and he went through lots of PTFE only and MoS2 only recipes (and other additives) before getting to his final version that combined them for best results, so we can bet that a paraffin/ptfe combo is probably somewhere between 4.6 and 4.85w loss.

I know that eliminating PTFE was a big priority for our lube program as well as for Ceramicspeed based on environmental goals. While buying a pound of PTFE powder on Amazon is pretty minimal for an individual, I don't want my company contributing to the problem by buying thousands of kilograms of it as not only the powder a problem, but every kg of PTFE produced results in considerable additional PFAS waste materials.

If you look at the most current data from CS (and I've validated all of this on our equipment, we see that the top lubricants are now testing in the ~2.9-3w loss range (also notable is that our Secret Blend hot wax was left off of the chart, it would be the lowest line on this chart if it had been included ;-)
Screen Shot 2021-09-13 at 9.31.54 AM.png
Last edited by joshatsilca on Mon Sep 13, 2021 3:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Owner of SILCA
Check out my Tech Blog: https://blog.silca.cc
Stories of the Tech behind the Tech: https://marginalgainspodcast.cc

mag
Posts: 616
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2017 12:23 pm

by mag

ZFC are commercial operation. They focus on selling some of the tested stuff as well as performing paid testing for other subjects (lube manufacturers). The rest depends on how much "free" time they have left.

If the addition of stuff like PTFE doesn't significantly improve the lube properties I wouldn't use it as fluoropolymers are harmful to the environment and (not only human of course) health and are (along with other fluorocarbons) currently being banned from many applications. Fluoropolymers are stable (pretty much non-reactive) themselves, but their production is very problematic and the other issue is that they aren''t biodegradable and can remain in the environment for a very long time (accumulating over time). And the powder form (small particles) is of course difficult to get rid of easily.
Even though we're talking about rather miniscule amounts in this particular case, it's still a contribution to the whole problem.

MikeD
Posts: 1000
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 9:55 pm

by MikeD

MoS2 is an extreme pressure additive and prevents metal to metal contact under high bearing forces as the lubricant gets squeezed out between the bearing surfaces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_pressure_additive.

joshatsilca
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2019 4:52 pm

by joshatsilca

Also, since it was mentioned above that the ZFC reports can be, shall we say timeconsuming, to get through, here is Adam's spreadsheet putting all of them together:
Screen Shot 2021-07-19 at 10.24.50 AM.png
Owner of SILCA
Check out my Tech Blog: https://blog.silca.cc
Stories of the Tech behind the Tech: https://marginalgainspodcast.cc

TobinHatesYou
Posts: 12457
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

joshatsilca wrote:
Mon Sep 13, 2021 2:34 pm
If we look at the full FrictionFacts data set (from prior to the CeramicSpeed purchase) we see:

Straight Paraffin: 4.75w
Squirt (warm immersion application): 4.0w
Molten Speed Wax: 4.4
Runaway Hot Tub: 4.45
MSW with race powder: 4.0

I don't have Jason's data for development of his recipe (which ultimately became MSW) but I knew him well when he was homebrewing and testing hot wax blends and he went through lots of PTFE only and MoS2 only recipes (and other additives) before getting to his final version that combined them for best results, so we can bet that a paraffin/ptfe combo is probably somewhere between 4.6 and 4.85w loss.

I know that eliminating PTFE was a big priority for our lube program as well as for Ceramicspeed based on environmental goals. While buying a pound of PTFE powder on Amazon is pretty minimal for an individual, I don't want my company contributing to the problem by buying thousands of kilograms of it as not only the powder a problem, but every kg of PTFE produced results in considerable additional PFAS waste materials.

If you look at the most current data from CS (and I've validated all of this on our equipment, we see that the top lubricants are now testing in the ~2.9-3w loss range (also notable is that our Secret Blend hot wax was left off of the chart, it would be the lowest line on this chart if it had been included ;-)
Screen Shot 2021-09-13 at 9.31.54 AM.png

And my bet is that 1:10 PTFE:wax by weight (as recommended by Oz and his disciple musiclover) is worse than plain paraffin. Would you support that assumption?

User avatar
Raimundo
Posts: 357
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2020 4:55 pm
Location: Flanders

by Raimundo

musiclover wrote:
Mon Sep 13, 2021 3:10 am
Raimundo wrote:
Sun Sep 12, 2021 9:09 pm
TobinHatesYou wrote:
Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:21 pm
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.
:oops: I'm going back to the drawing bord on this one. I guess i will read this whole thread again and try to pick up the pieces ... and then go from there.

Didn't knew it was possible, but i kind of underestimated the depth of this thread. There's a boatload of info to digest here... only at WEENIES i suppose. :roll:

mgrl
Posts: 340
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2020 12:49 am

by mgrl

It does not!

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



bluebottle81
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:23 pm

by bluebottle81

joshatsilca wrote:
Mon Sep 13, 2021 2:34 pm
(also notable is that our Secret Blend hot wax was left off of the chart, it would be the lowest line on this chart if it had been included ;-)
I had always thought the aqua line in this chart was referring to the Silca Hot Melt Wax, is it actually the Silca SS (drip) Lube??

Post Reply