ZFC/chain waxing

[fatpinarellorider]

If you have to heat up and melt a litre of wax or whatever every single time you want to lubrication your chain, then no I don't think that is environmentally friendly at all. I stopped doing it.

[EugeneC]

The individual above lacks an understanding of how a chain works.

'The individual above' is interested in isolating and understanding the proportional effect of regular cleaning versus the lube itself, given waxing also includes a change to cleaning regime.

I guess the issue with that test is it doesn't shift product as well in this modern world of 'reviews' and 'lab tests' that are closely connected to commerce.

I'm trying to understand your point.

When waxing chains you degrease it before the first waxtreatment. This means that the chain is completely clean before the first waxing. When riding in wet conditions, you put the chain in boiling water to get it clean. The boiling water removes dirt and wax. The chain will be close to completely clean after dipped in boiling water. There will almost be no wax on the chain and no dirt. Thats why you put it boiling water.

Now, when using the old regime with regular lube, the chain will always be dirty, because lube and dirt collects in the pins and rollers. So the difference between waxing and lubing means having a clean chain or having a dirty chain. If you completely degreased your lubed chain in order to remove all grease and dirt from the pins and rollers after every ride, and relubed before the next ride, you would surely get a significantly longer lifespan out of your lubed chain.

So is the longer lifespan of a waxed chain caused by the wax istelf? Or is it because the process of waxing always requires a clean chain?

[TidyDinosaur]

If you have to heat up and melt a litre of wax or whatever every single time you want to lubrication your chain, then no I don't think that is environmentally friendly at all. I stopped doing it.

That's very personal. Last week I waxed 8 chains in one session. So energy consumption is very low per chain.

[ichobi]

That is a false dichotomy given you cannot have a state of always clean chain while riding with the normal oil dripping method since dirts and grimes will always gets in the pins and links no matter how clean it is after fresh degreasing/ cleaning session.

With waxing dirts can hardly enter the nooks and crannies of the entire chain system during your ride so its therefore comparatively much cleaner before and after cleaning/ riding. Even compared to oiled chain That gets frequent degreasing, waxed chain is likely to be way more long lasting.

The process and the results are interlinked. You cant have one without the other. The best you can do if you dislike immersive waxing is using drip wax solution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MikeD]

The individual above lacks an understanding of how a chain works.

'The individual above' is interested in isolating and understanding the proportional effect of regular cleaning versus the lube itself, given waxing also includes a change to cleaning regime.

I guess the issue with that test is it doesn't shift product as well in this modern world of 'reviews' and 'lab tests' that are closely connected to commerce.

I'm trying to understand your point.

When waxing chains you degrease it before the first waxtreatment. This means that the chain is completely clean before the first waxing. When riding in wet conditions, you put the chain in boiling water to get it clean. The boiling water removes dirt and wax. The chain will be close to completely clean after dipped in boiling water. There will almost be no wax on the chain and no dirt. Thats why you put it boiling water.

Now, when using the old regime with regular lube, the chain will always be dirty, because lube and dirt collects in the pins and rollers. So the difference between waxing and lubing means having a clean chain or having a dirty chain. If you completely degreased your lubed chain in order to remove all grease and dirt from the pins and rollers after every ride, and relubed before the next ride, you would surely get a significantly longer lifespan out of your lubed chain.

So is the longer lifespan of a waxed chain caused by the wax istelf? Or is it because the process of waxing always requires a clean chain?

Neither. Wax doesn't attract dirt so the chain stays clean. Dirt causes wear. Wax in and of itself isn't a good lubricant, but this is offset by the fact that it keeps the chain clean and acts as a barrier to dirt intrusion into the chain. The WS2 additive in Silca wax and MSW seems to help with lubrication and longevity of the lube as well.

[spartan]

not a lot of press coverage but finish line has anounced a new product in this space.

Finish Line HALO Hot Wax

https://www.bikeradar.com/news/silca-fi ... ain-waxing

[EtoDemerzel]

If you have to heat up and melt a litre of wax or whatever every single time you want to lubrication your chain, then no I don't think that is environmentally friendly at all. I stopped doing it.

warming up a pot is not environmentally friendly?

[fatpinarellorider]

If you have to heat up and melt a litre of wax or whatever every single time you want to lubrication your chain, then no I don't think that is environmentally friendly at all. I stopped doing it.

warming up a pot is not environmentally friendly?

Not if you have to use a gas stove to do it.

[EtoDemerzel]

If you have to heat up and melt a litre of wax or whatever every single time you want to lubrication your chain, then no I don't think that is environmentally friendly at all. I stopped doing it.

warming up a pot is not environmentally friendly?

Not if you have to use a gas stove to do it.

I don't care what anyone uses for chain lube but that's a wild take. What's your environmetally friendly alternative? Petroleum distillates, solvents, hydrocarbons, PTFE and PFC's in bicycle lubes then wash your bike, what do you do with the drain off?

wax is by far the most environmentally friendly way to lube your drivetrain. Don't want to use a gas stove, use a electric heating element.

[EugeneC]

Neither. Wax doesn't attract dirt so the chain stays clean. Dirt causes wear. Wax in and of itself isn't a good lubricant, but this is offset by the fact that it keeps the chain clean and acts as a barrier to dirt intrusion into the chain. The WS2 additive in Silca wax and MSW seems to help with lubrication and longevity of the lube as well.

My point is, that it's the dirt that causes wear. And we seem to agree on that.

Since a lubed chain always will be filled with dirt in the pins and rollers, that is probably what causes the shorter lifespan of a lubed chain.

[iow]

... Wax in and of itself isn't a good lubricant, but this is offset by the fact that it keeps the chain clean and acts as a barrier to dirt intrusion into the chain.

Not necessarily so. For bike chains it maybe a very effective lube - Block 1 of the ZFC test is a pure lubrication test ie. no contamination or water, and wax outperforms all the oils.
I would like to see regular gear changes included in the test protocol. This would dislodge wax, especially between the side plates and allow contamination in. As it is, I think the test favours wax.

[BenCousins]

The individual above lacks an understanding of how a chain works.

'The individual above' is interested in isolating and understanding the proportional effect of regular cleaning versus the lube itself, given waxing also includes a change to cleaning regime.

I guess the issue with that test is it doesn't shift product as well in this modern world of 'reviews' and 'lab tests' that are closely connected to commerce.

I'm trying to understand your point.

When waxing chains you degrease it before the first waxtreatment. This means that the chain is completely clean before the first waxing. When riding in wet conditions, you put the chain in boiling water to get it clean. The boiling water removes dirt and wax. The chain will be close to completely clean after dipped in boiling water. There will almost be no wax on the chain and no dirt. Thats why you put it boiling water.

Now, when using the old regime with regular lube, the chain will always be dirty, because lube and dirt collects in the pins and rollers. So the difference between waxing and lubing means having a clean chain or having a dirty chain. If you completely degreased your lubed chain in order to remove all grease and dirt from the pins and rollers after every ride, and relubed before the next ride, you would surely get a significantly longer lifespan out of your lubed chain.

So is the longer lifespan of a waxed chain caused by the wax istelf? Or is it because the process of waxing always requires a clean chain?

Yep, that is my point. What proportion of the lifespan increase is simply the fact that the chain is cleaned more often, and more throughly.

[toxin]

But it is not cleaned more often, how many times must we say that for you to understand?

[MikeD]

... Wax in and of itself isn't a good lubricant, but this is offset by the fact that it keeps the chain clean and acts as a barrier to dirt intrusion into the chain.

Not necessarily so. For bike chains it maybe a very effective lube - Block 1 of the ZFC test is a pure lubrication test ie. no contamination or water, and wax outperforms all the oils.
I would like to see regular gear changes included in the test protocol. This would dislodge wax, especially between the side plates and allow contamination in. As it is, I think the test favours wax.

Do you ever see wax used for lubrication in machinery or motor vehicles? No. In the absence of dirt, wax is a poor lubricant. The low friction that ZFC observes with wax is misleading. Solid lubricants get pushed out of the bearing area and can't flow back because they're not liquid. Viscous friction that might be observed there is not going to cause wear.

[Lina]

... Wax in and of itself isn't a good lubricant, but this is offset by the fact that it keeps the chain clean and acts as a barrier to dirt intrusion into the chain.

Not necessarily so. For bike chains it maybe a very effective lube - Block 1 of the ZFC test is a pure lubrication test ie. no contamination or water, and wax outperforms all the oils.
I would like to see regular gear changes included in the test protocol. This would dislodge wax, especially between the side plates and allow contamination in. As it is, I think the test favours wax.

Do you ever see wax used for lubrication in machinery or motor vehicles? No. In the absence of dirt, wax is a poor lubricant. The low friction that ZFC observes with wax is misleading. Solid lubricants get pushed out of the bearing area and can't flow back because they're not liquid. Viscous friction that might be observed there is not going to cause wear.

In the absense of dirt is the operative phrase here. With liquid lubricants you're never without dirt on a bike chain outside an indoor velodrome. It just won't happen. Your front wheel literally slings dust and dirt straight into the chain all the time when you ride outside.