ZFC/chain waxing

[SunsetRider]

At this point I have the feeling that we are simply being trolled here.

Yeah. When I saw heating 1 liter of wax every time you need to lube a chain I figured we were well down the rabbit hole at that point.

Just for yucks, I figured the energy consumption for my chain waxing. My little CrockPot draws 89 W on high. Average time on per waxing is probably 1.5 hours to heat it up and wax 4 or 5 chains. Say I do that 6 times a year (which is on the high side).

.089 (kW) x 1.5 (h) x 6 = .8 kWh per year. Yes, a whooping environmentally catastrophic .8 kWh. Or in other terms running the A/C for about 15 minutes in the summer. Or driving an EV about 4.6 km. Or 2% of the output from my solar panels on a nice sunny day.

[EugeneC]

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

If you take your bike out in shitty conditions, the ZFC regime reqiures you to put the chain in boiled water and rewax. How is that not cleaning the chain?

[Jaisen]

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

If you take your bike out in shitty conditions, the ZFC regime reqiures you to put the chain in boiled water and rewax. How is that not cleaning the chain?

If you take your bike out in shitty conditions, the ZFC tests, as well as other independent tests, demonstrates the wet lubes will be washed out from the chain and should be degreased and relubbed. So no matter what lube you choose, shitty conditions means you should clean the chain. Now compare the process of putting a chain in boiling water and dropping it into a pot of melted wax vs scrubbing and degreasing it, drying it, and then applying wet lube. I know which one I find easier and faster.

[EugeneC]

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

If you take your bike out in shitty conditions, the ZFC regime reqiures you to put the chain in boiled water and rewax. How is that not cleaning the chain?

If you take your bike out in shitty conditions, the ZFC tests, as well as other independent tests, demonstrates the wet lubes will be washed out from the chain and should be degreased and relubbed. So no matter what lube you choose, shitty conditions means you should clean the chain. Now compare the process of putting a chain in boiling water and dropping it into a pot of melted wax vs scrubbing and degreasing it, drying it, and then applying wet lube. I know which one I find easier and faster.

I 100 % agree. But that's not the issue here.

[toxin]

Your entire argument is based on waxed chains being cleaned more often than oild chains which is just not true and you are clearly aware of that. So what are you trying to do here?

**edited by MOD. This isn't a school playground people, play nice***

[TobinHatesYou]

Just pour a bit of alcohol onto a rag and wipe the dirty chain, then top off with wax drip lube. What is the big deal, EugeneC?

[okx]

And as Tobin has also mentioned waxing increases drivetrain longevity by a very noticeable margin. So you're replacing components much less frequently with wax and that has to be taken into account when thinkin about how environmentally friendly something is.

Has anyone yet determined to what degree it's the waxing vs the pre-cleaning that is increasing longevity? Has anyone done a like for like with a chain that is treated as if it is about to be waxed (throughly cleaned) but then another lube is used?

Most normal cyclists I know that wax chains have gone from throwing oil at it three times a year and never cleaning it properly, to removing it and cleaning it throughly as prep before waxing. It's hard to ignore the prep part as massively contributing to longevity versus the old way.

It's a wax, just it has reqarement for chain to be 100% free from any kind of oil.
And hot wax + drip wax is amazing for chain longlivity.
I alsways clean my new chains, that it's completlely free from any kind of oil's. In my case, chain prep was identical for standard lub'es and for hot wax.
In 2022 season I have used Dynamic Speed Potion Wax every 125-150km and chain lasted 5k km (road in good condition) - wear rate 0,5.
In 2023 season I have used Silca hot wax every 1k km + UFO Drip every 150-200km and after 7,3k km chain wear was only 0,1.

And it's not just me, my friend had identical results after switching to hot wax.

[Llanberis]

I feel like we're banging our heads against a brick wall here..

[MikeD]

How do you know when to rewax your chain? Is when you hear it squeak too late? I waxed my chain with the new MSW, and I've got many months of use on it and hundreds of miles (estimated, since I didn't keep notes). No squeaks and chain still quiet. I swapped it out with another waxed chain just because I thought it was time. I was kinda amazed at how long it went since I read that wax doesn't last that long. Any thoughts here?

[MagicShite]

How do you know when to rewax your chain? Is when you hear it squeak too late? I waxed my chain with the new MSW, and I've got many months of use on it and hundreds of miles (estimated, since I didn't keep notes). No squeaks and chain still quiet. I swapped it out with another waxed chain just because I thought it was time. I was kinda amazed at how long it went since I read that wax doesn't last that long. Any thoughts here?

I go by km and a specific pattern.

The only full immersion I use is for MTB. I'll rewax after every muddy race or after every 250km. I have two chains in rotation. I typically get 1 month out of one chain.

For Roadie, I use a wax emulsion of my own invention (which I sell back in my country) for top ups. I never degrease the chain nor do I clean it (only wipe with alcohol + rag before topping up). I used to use squirt, flower power and even without degreasing, I get more than 8000km from them before it even sees 0.5%.

[Nereth]

People saying "Why isn't Wax used in industry then", well:

1) Rewaxing requires disassembly, which is too much downtime for industrial equipment.
2) Where efficiency is needed, relatively thin wet lubes are an option coupled with splash lubrication, oil pumps/jets etc to keep the lube on the lubricated surfaces that would otherwise fling off/squeeze out in 3 rotations.
3) Where efficiency isn't needed, but longevity is, heavy greases are an option, because no one cares about the efficiency loss.

[BenCousins]

And as Tobin has also mentioned waxing increases drivetrain longevity by a very noticeable margin. So you're replacing components much less frequently with wax and that has to be taken into account when thinkin about how environmentally friendly something is.

Has anyone yet determined to what degree it's the waxing vs the pre-cleaning that is increasing longevity? Has anyone done a like for like with a chain that is treated as if it is about to be waxed (throughly cleaned) but then another lube is used?

Most normal cyclists I know that wax chains have gone from throwing oil at it three times a year and never cleaning it properly, to removing it and cleaning it throughly as prep before waxing. It's hard to ignore the prep part as massively contributing to longevity versus the old way.

It's a wax, just it has reqarement for chain to be 100% free from any kind of oil.
And hot wax + drip wax is amazing for chain longlivity.
I alsways clean my new chains, that it's completlely free from any kind of oil's. In my case, chain prep was identical for standard lub'es and for hot wax.
In 2022 season I have used Dynamic Speed Potion Wax every 125-150km and chain lasted 5k km (road in good condition) - wear rate 0,5.
In 2023 season I have used Silca hot wax every 1k km + UFO Drip every 150-200km and after 7,3k km chain wear was only 0,1.

And it's not just me, my friend had identical results after switching to hot wax.

You didn't read my post, or don't understand my point.

[iow]

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.

Every application is different, but we're talking bike chains. ZFC are not measuring friction, they're measuring wear and are assuming that low wear correlates to low friction. If good lubrication = low wear then wax outperforms all the oils in ZFC's tests (edit: Even in test block 1 which is in the absence of dirt). Naturally a person's definition of 'good lubrication' may vary.

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.

Again it depends on the application, but it doesn't appear to be happening in ZFC's testing - If it did, wear rates for waxed chains would be higher. As I say, it would be good to see some gear changes introduced to their test protocol to see if varying axial chain alignment promotes lubricant (wax) starvation.

It's great that ZFC make all this information available for us to debate.

[Nereth]

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.

Every application is different, but we're talking bike chains. ZFC are not measuring friction, they're measuring wear and are assuming that low wear correlates to low friction. If good lubrication = low wear then wax outperforms all the oils in ZFC's tests (edit: Even in test block 1 which is in the absence of dirt). Naturally a person's definition of 'good lubrication' may vary.

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.

Again it depends on the application, but it doesn't appear to be happening in ZFC's testing - If it did, wear rates for waxed chains would be higher. As I say, it would be good to see some gear changes introduced to their test protocol to see if varying axial chain alignment promotes lubricant (wax) starvation.

It's great that ZFC make all this information available for us to debate.

To be fair against ZFC (despite loving his work/using it as an incredibly valuable data source/being a wax convert based on his data) I think the assumption that low wear = low friction is a pretty poor one, especially across different wear/lubrication mechanisms - although it probably is fair to say that when he sees that wear jump point he looks for, then that particular lubricant is no longer functioning and friction will skyrocket.

By way of example: in hydrodynamic lubrication (read: wet/oil lube in rotating machinery), a more viscous lubricant will basically by definition provide a thicker fluid film which will prevent wear from occuring despite larger contaminant particles - but it will also put more drag onto all the moving interfaces touching it by being... you know... more viscous.

[MikeD]

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.

Every application is different, but we're talking bike chains. ZFC are not measuring friction, they're measuring wear and are assuming that low wear correlates to low friction. If good lubrication = low wear then wax outperforms all the oils in ZFC's tests (edit: Even in test block 1 which is in the absence of dirt). Naturally a person's definition of 'good lubrication' may vary.

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.

Again it depends on the application, but it doesn't appear to be happening in ZFC's testing - If it did, wear rates for waxed chains would be higher. As I say, it would be good to see some gear changes introduced to their test protocol to see if varying axial chain alignment promotes lubricant (wax) starvation.

It's great that ZFC make all this information available for us to debate.

I have to look again but he's measuring both wear and friction.

Edit: Yeah, you're right. Measuring wear, not friction. I was thinking of this earlier and similar testing here: https://ceramicspeed.com/pages/chain-lu ... ency-tests

Another article I read postulated that the reason wax comes out as having lower friction than oils are viscosity and stiction effects.