Episode 20 Muc Off Files - Cycling’s most dishonest Marketing???
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ส.ค. 2022
- Adam talks about some worrying signs in the land of bike chain lubrication. Zero Friction Cycling has spent many hours of research into the findings that Muc Off provides and we still have some big questions. In this episode Adam discuss his concerns and you may be very concerned too after watching this episode.
- กีฬา
I recently thought that I’d give Muc Off a try on my winter/commuter/gravel bike. I instantly noticed the excessive amount of crud that had attached itself to my drivetrain. I cleaned it and tried again, with the same results. The Muc Off went into the bin. Probably the best thing about TH-cam is that we now have a few independent voices rather than the sponsored content masquerading as impartial advice. Chapeau ZFC.
I never would have guessed that Tim Allen is actually Australian and has a cycling channel on TH-cam.
He's looking fit. That's what cycling does to you 😂
😂
😂
Zfc I have 2 bottles of suck off in my cupboard that I haven’t used in 5 years due to it being so shit and making my chain black in 1 ride . I now use squirt but will be changing to something better. We need more people like you as I’m sick to death with the absolute bollocks manufacturers come out with and the fact that cycling is being turned into a rich mans sport . Brilliant channel and thank you for standing up and saying it like it is 👍
What is that something better? Using squirt for about a week now and i love it. Easy to clean and doesn’t make my chain black like muc off.
@@pinoyxbox I’m looking at making my own or using molten speed wax , but for now I will carry on with squirt until it runs out 👍
@@pinoyxbox Effeto Mariposa Flowerpower Wax gets excellent reviews, I've only just started using it, but so far it is working well.
Just switch to immersive waxing and realize you can wear pants and touch your drivetrain again.
Now that really is "acerbic" that moniker Suck-Off is something that famous 5 year old Hambini would come up with. Probably why zero friction didn't respond , fearing a video takedown or TH-cam de monetization. A lot of the "gains" are likely within the margin of testing error to begin with. Ease of application ,cleaning, and price may count for more.
In my opion you are not being too hard on Muc-off at all. Thanks for highlighting the issue so consumers can buy products that perform as expected and not be blind sided by marketing mumbo jumbo!👍
Thanks Flip for support!
Thanks for looking out for the average consumer. It is much appreciated. Every time my current batch of lubricant is about to run out I go to your page, as the only independent and trustworthy source of updated information on what lubricants are currently tested as the best, to inform my next purchase. Thank you very much for the work you do, and for not holding back when dishonest corporations are trying to sell us something that is not real.
Thankyou for the work you do. We need people like you to fight disinformation.
My Muc Off stuff is now used for general oiling around the house. As soon as they did the lubricant with the UV light I lost all faith in them. I’ve lost friends trying to get through to them that the lubricant on a chain should be on the inside of the links, not on the outside and none can accept that. I now use Silca Synergetic thanks to you which is superb. Keep up with the videos, your now up there with Hambini, Peak Torque, Leuscher Teknik and a few others that are truth and evidence driven.
Thanks scott! yes i am continually surprised how many think the UV light makes sense. Why oh why oh why would one want to ensure all of the outside of chain is coated in contamination attracting wet lubricant. I do get that initially people will fall for it, but not once a couple simple points have been explained. However i have been learning more from some great podcasts like timesuck that a very common phenomena is that the more concrete facts are presented to some people, the more they double down on their original conviction against that viewpoint. Its fascinating stuff.
I am humbled re your comparisons, Leuscher especially is a great person in the industry. Alas..... oooh i must say i really cringe at being put in any bracket with hambini. Whilst he does indeed do some great work, he has also (in my opinion) put out some very false information in his ceramic vs steel bearings vid (i have a document covering that, i think if you read you will definitely agree - i doubt you are part of the dig in against facts phenomena). But mostly.....i dont want to be a prude but i just personally cannot abide the severe bullying behavior, and i have pretty big concerns re chauvinism - some of the vids have been removed now but had things like the head of aerocoach as "Mr Vagina head" and "probably out riding fat bottomed womans bike" - along with prolific use of the C word - its 2022, is it still acceptable to be using female genitalia in the negative? But really instead of using his very large intellect to try and effect positive change with companies - the style of attack for me is just belittling and bullying - and this is apparently amusing - and that is just not me. I just would like to be separated from being anything like Mr H. The world was never improved in my opinion by more bullies, regardless of how charismatic they may be.
@@zerofrictioncycling992 I completely understand re Mr H. I cringe myself at some of his outbursts and I think he’d have been taken seriously if he’d just toned that side down a bit. But saying that, the cycling industry does need more and more people like you (and he, if he could leave the ego out) calling them out. Companies like Canyon with the Aeroad seatpost creaking, Muc Off with wild wattage claims, Cannondale with the supersix steerer/headtube issue. All of these would be hidden if it weren’t for independent content creators because you can bet nobody in the cycling press won’t be biting the hand that feeds.
I’ll take a look at the ceramic vs steel comparison paper. I’m always open to questioning what I thought/think is correct.
@@zerofrictioncycling992 I hear you on the chauvinism argument against Hambini but I don't agree re: bullying. It's always seemed to me he's "punching up" when it comes to taking on the manufacturers and those who promote their products that seem to have serious flaws but are sold for big $.
I mean if you've sold your soul to the point you lie to your customers to sell them expensive garbage you deserve everything dished out to you in my book. It's like Specialized suing small bike shops (Roubaix Cycles) for using the name Roubaix or Trek supporting Lance Pharmstrong over Greg LeMond, I'll never buy a product from either company because they chose which side of the moral divide they were going to be on.
Re: Muc-Off, I haven't heard anything good about their tire sealant either.
@@Surestick88 Yep i think you have some very good points there. Honestly maybe i am / have been a bit harsh re hambini - i hadnt watched anything of his for a long time - as i was pretty put off initially - but a lot of those videos i see are now deleted - including his most misogynistic ones, and i watched a couple of his more recent vids , and whilst he may just not be my style (like i am no doubt as boring as paint drying to him hahahaha) - i can certainly see the value in what he does, and his appeal overall. I really do wish as well though that his information on steel vs ceramic bearings wasnt so.... wrong, and for reasons i worry that are just as commercial as other poor behaviors by others - if you get time read the "Bearings - Steel vs ceramic" in the instructions tab on ZFC website, if you dont share my concerns after reading that, i will be surprised. But that rather worrying aside...well... aside - i wish i didnt have these worries as he does do some truly unique work and insights in the industry, and i can see why many value him such.
Hi Adam,
Very thankful having found your and Yosh Portner 's YT channel...
I can say that all the knowledge and benefit I took from that really changed my "cycling life".For me your work has become an outstanding light in the dark.. Please keep on going.
First started to watch 20 or more hours of your lessons, after that I was shure with immersive waxing. I am convinced that this is one of most helpful and beneficial method of bike maintainance ever invented. Me and all the other riders you 've reached by that, owe an huge thanks to you for your work.
Best wishes from Germany
Horst
Many thanks horst for your feedback and super glad your are enjoying the vids and finding them helpful!
Thanks for your hard work. I think it's extremely important to have independent research and data points, like yours, purely based on science and not biased by who's funding it. It's very valuable to have your data available to any conscious consumers. Thanks again!
Spot on with my experience, over 1000km on a mineral oil based lube and that ran out, no noticeable chain wear measured. I swapped over to Muc Off dry lube. Less than 500km and I have seen drive train wear to the point that my chain is cactus.
I thought it was me until my second bike has done the same (MTB), and now splitting side plates.
The so-called lube is horrible and will grind down all components so much faster than any other brand I have tried.
I used "muc off dry lube" on my commuting bike for a year , chain and cassette were dead after less than 1500 km . I cleaned the chain, cassette, chainring at least once a week and relube quite often. Then i switched to Squirt , it was much better. But for about 6 months , i do hot melt chain wax on all my bikes , and im never going back to anything else. I only use Squirt from time to time , when the chain is about 150-180 km since the last hot melt waxing and i dont have the time to rewax before riding.
great to hear and yes those traditional type dry lubricants are just so bad in general. M-O dry is not really any worse than Finish line dry or other similar products on the market - they are just so poor as are so little actual lubrication, the bulk of volume is carrier designed to evap off. Chain is cleaner looking vs their wet lubricants, just not lubricated. WIth M-o we seemingly have a choice of pretend lubrication with their dry lube, or industrial griding paste lubrication with their wet lubricants. Very glad you are onto waxing! Grand times for drivetrain indeed :)
As to not having time to rewax before riding, I suggest getting an extra chain and keep on hand a waxed chain. Then as long as the chain you pulled off is not beyond wear limits, you have many trips to get the take off chain waxed and ready to go on the bike.
Thanks Adam for transparent work you’re doing - following every single post! Superb!!
thanks timo much appreciated!
Thanks for the information. On the format front, I've found that setting up an outline of points that I want to cover and then doing the dives into each point extemporaneously because I already KNOW the content. Definitely helps me professionally. Also all wax all the time here now. I have a single MTB chain set aside for use in the wet & mud that I use T-9 on, but it almost never gets used because it never rains in California anymore.
Thanks Garth and yes i will keep chipping away at trying to get better. Aside from lack of natural public speaking / presenting talent, a big issue is prep time. I always hope to get some good blocks of prep to plan and execute a better presentation before film day, but then every day is just flat out on normal ZFC work (i am still very very behind on many things and working madly to catch up) that prep time is just always way insufficient, and i end up mostly winging it. I even had planned a good summary and conclusion for this one, and then forgot :). I have recently started listening to PERUN and his ability to present a lot of complex information so well is amazing. if i get to 1% of his ability i will be happy.
oh and great work re mtb, however use of T-9 for wet and mud is interesting. wax i find is just so much easier to reset post wet muddy rides vs wet lubricants as i can just do some boiling water flush rinses with my mspeedwax or hot melt chain, but wet lubricants just flat out takes a bunch of solvent baths, which for those without distillers to re cycle back, is just a much more expensive way to reset chain post wet rides. Am testing the aerosol T-9 now as i havent tested an aerosol bicycle chain lubricant to date (for good reason, what a wasteful way to apply a lubricant...) - not going that well....
Great video👍I'm glad I watched it and I've subscribed to your channel. I recently walked in to my local bike shop and asked for some chain lube, he thrust a minuscule bottle of muc-off in to my hand and said that's the one you want! Then charged me £9 for 120ml! After the very first 30 miles I noticed how black my chain had got! In my humble opinion all these companies are ripping the hole out the prices! I now use my local motor factors for cleaning product's because you get a can twice the size for generally the same price! As for chain lube I've started using Scottoiler lube from my motorcycle! I can get a 500ml bottle without feeling like I just got reemed. P.s. I absolutely dig the paint job on you gravel Cervelo 😎
thanks edward! Im not sure if it is the case with M-O's cheaper lubricants (as opposed to their very expensive hydrodynamic and crazy expensive ludicrous AF) if they are just re branded existing industry products with a hefty bike tax + muc off marketing budget tax. It is believed to be very common across cycling industry re lubricants that they are just re bottled and re branded X lubricant from X other industry mfg. It beggars belief that there are 1000+ cycling specific lubricants that have been developed by the mfg or company selling them. Many of the top tested lubricants are absolutely developed specifically for use on a bicycle chain, and are absolutely worth the money. Your scott oiler may do an ok job depending on how contaminated the lubricant gets - just remember that in total cost to run (check the cost to run tables on website), that overall for all the genuinely high performing lubricants, the lubricant cost - even if it is $55 a bottle - is by far the smallest component in the cost to run ones drivetrain if it is genuinely preventing a lot of wear. Such products deliver such low drivetrain cost to run, because much more expensive parts in the equation just last oh so much longer. Ie one will save a lot of money by purchasing a $55 bottle of synergetic or black diamond vs a $15 bottle of rock n roll gold - even though RNR gold is not a bad lubricant.
And thankyou yes Goldilocks looks a million bucks to me! i have been steadily adding more bling, the latest being those gold ingrid cranks that took me a year to get hold of! Since i greatly lack actual watts, i am going for as many style watts as i can :)
I used Muc-off and it was so black. After reading your review I switched to UFO V2. Cleaning each week has been a breeze. That was a year ago now and never going back.
Ive been suspicious of them for quite some time. Have had many bikes through with baked on hardened filth that you can not remove from the drivetrain. When questioned what they used the majority answer was muc off. We've removed all products from store. Bike wash, degreasers and protection sprays all been replaced with Krush. Hell even the sealant is not great. The crap is still stuck to my frame 4 years after trying it out.
Great decisions Kevin, it really is heartening to hear when bike stores remove a high margin product from shelves for the genuine good of their customers. Over a lot of years of testing now we can see from the data table that NOTHING remotely absorbs as much contamination so rapidly and becomes so abrasive - as the M-O lubricants tested, which are their top 3 lubricants. I dont have anything objective to base cleaning product performance on- but i do know that many other mfg's (like krush) make a great product and in my opinion anyone other than M-O is more worthy of ones hard earned $$. Anecdotally i havent heard good things about their sealant, but that is not uncommon for a lot of sealant brands - it is getting to be a pretty crowded market - but would need to see an object test like what singletracks do - will have to check to see if they have done one including M-O one day - i am sure the marketing behind what M-O sealant does is market leading however! :)
I used their dry lube on the new chain. After every 80 or 100 km ride, the chain was dry and squeaky. This was more evident in hot weather. I followed their rublication instructions exactly because I thought I was doing something wrong. After about 1000 km I broke the chain. And like you said, there were darker residue spots on the chain. Now I use Squirt lube. Much better results.
Switched from Muc Off lube to Silca hot melt wax because of the information you provide in this video (and the more recent one on Dylan Johnson's channel). Not because of the marginal gain in efficiency, but because of the unbelievable wear rate of these Muc Off products. Thanks for bringing this to light. It's incredible that such a bad product is pushed to market as a premium option.
Yep - there are a few layers to unpack re why this situation with the likes of muc-off / finish line etc is so prevalent - ie why are these products taking up so much shelf space in so many stores around the world, and actively recommended by LBS - i will have to do a vid on the main reasons why when i get the chance, it is very interesting (well i think so... capitalism / commercial / market forces do not always work in the best interests of the consumer). And i have to hand it to them, commercial strategy wise M-O are VERY clever. If only the actual products matched their commercial strategy, they would be a company of much impressiveness.
I used Muc Off C3 Ceramic recently for a 230 km 3 day ride (Tour de Rocks) on gravel and dirt roads. Noticed that it did collect dust and grime. I had to wipe down the chain daily and re apply. Funny thing was i had 2 bottles of Muc Off on garage floor and rats had eaten through the bottles and I lost the Muc Off to the floor. Maybe they could re market it as a rodent attractant instead! I am about to change my lube to the Silca hot wax and drip from now on. Thanks for your honest and informative website and the videos.
Something I've said for a while now... "Good products don't need good marketing, and good marketing doesn't make a product good". Very simple and very true. Companies that have excellent sales, don't need to invest in marketing, the product sells itself. So everyone should be wary of products with big fancy sales stands like Muc Off uses.
Thank You for your work!!
Thank you for the objective, well thought through, objective testing and explanation!
Thank you very much, learned something again!
Love your videos and love your presenting style, (too slick is too slick) your information and straightforward explanation has renewed my drive to move to immerse waxing for new chains and have ordered Rex Domestique for my used chains until I can get hold of their immersive waxes in the UK.
Thanks again
Pw
thanks so much paul!
Very interesting video. Unfortunately in my city the lubricants that can be obtained in bicycle shops are Muc-off dry lube, finish line dry lube and squirt. The routes we do are all on dusty trails and the chains are always end up very dirty. Now I'm using muc-off but after seeing the video I'm thinking about what to do.
Use the internet to get lube
Yes definitely squirt is the best option by MILES vs the others. It isnt really matching to the top products tested over the last couple of years, but its a solid good choice. If you can get it (if shipping not too bad) then i would look at the new lubricant from effetto mariposa - their flower power wax has just set a new record low wear rate for a drip lubricant, it has no initial penetration issues, it is super smooth to ride, a treatment is long lasting, it is extremely enviro friendly, and not too costly for a bottle that will last AGES. Even if shipping was a bit, it would be worth grabbing a couple of bottles as you will be set then for a long time, and it is just such a great product - the shipping will be easily paid back by the extremely low drivetrain wear. have a look at the data table on website you will see it is well ahead of squirt in every block. and vs Muc-Off, well the difference is like choosing between running a top performing lubricant or sand + water as your lubricant - they would be about that far apart in performance!!
Buy online ? What country are you in ?
@@moserroman2083 Perú
Just bought silca synergetic because of your reviews. Keep up the good work!
Thank you, Adam. I really appreciate you doing this. I feel that your presentation was extremely fair to Muck-Off. You presented your case very well and everything you said seems to be backed up with facts and makes sense. Truth be told, with all that's going on in the world, this can seem a little unimportant, but integrity in any area still makes a difference to me and many others. Cycling is so important to my life so having a place to go that has proven to be trustworthy and free from marketing hype is a very big deal to me, so thank you.
Thanks Catmando - yes it matters a lot to me too! As much as possible i try to avoid purchasing from companies that behave very badly. Not always possible as we are bit stuck when it comes to big tech companies... but where possible. I must say I really did expect - for a long time, that M-O would simply answer the questions that need answering - directly, to allay the concerns, that despite how clear the damning evidence was, that there was a viable explanation from their side, and here it is. But no. Even when finally managed to get call with Martin - the phd head lab tech - i could get not get an answer on specific questions very much needing answering, things were always quickly moved on to show me next flash machine they had. I sent in, again (i initially sent in questions years ago)., the questions needing answering, they replied they would they just needed a week to do so, follow up, follow up - nothing. I dont see how they can explain away the concerns, and the fact they refuse to do so - i just cannot draw any other conclusion at this time other than that they have - in my opinion - planned and executed a whole lot of extremely dishonest actions to achieve a marketing outcome. So the company culture at M-O, which would be driven from the top - to me is one of there really is not a moral line re making more money. Yes they are killing it marketing and sales wise vs competitors - but i believe in large part that is because they are crossing lines most people / most companies - are not willing to cross. And i think it is time people were aware so they can make their own decisions about which companies deserve their patronage - those that have brought out genuinely great products with honest marketing, or a product that acts more like liquid sandpaper and with the most dishonest (in my opinion) marketing i have ever come across to date in cycling.
Thanks for the informative video. I started using their ceramic c3 garbage and found it become sticky and attracted anything from the road. Onto the waxing rabbit hole! 😅
Thanks Terence, and yes somehow i have to figure out a way to reduce this, M-0 c3 dry lube is just such a popular lubricant across the world as it is heavily sold out of LBS. I am not sure if overall there is a single other product that would be responsible for more early drive train deaths than c3, not because it is any worse than similar lubricants in that category (ie finish line dry seems to be just as poor, white lightning epic ride or clean ride etc) - just c3 is such a highly sold product. How to prevent LBS the world over from actively recommending and selling a murderous drivetrain product. Im not going to get any help from GCN or GMBN!!!
Thank you for all your hard work on this issue and on drivetrain friction generally. Muc-Off do seem to market pretty hard. They have cultivated a relationship with GCN in the UK and seem to have an exclusive deal with Evans Cycles here too. You don't seem to be able to buy anything but Muc-Off products at my local Evans. Am not sure this serves cyclists well at all. Thanks for rising the issue.
Thanks chris - and yes honestly M-O are EXTREMELY smart on the commercial front. From partnerships with the likes of GCN and GMBN - they get lots of advertising $$, M-O get great reviews and exposure - and also bike store penetration. I have been emailed by store in USA to advise the M-O rep pitched that if they stock exclusively M-O, they get a guaranteed 70% margin on all products. That is pretty huge. I maintain RRP on zfc online store and am generally happy with 30% margin if i can get that. And most LBS simply will not have any reason to question M-O marketing and testing, so they believe it is a win win for them - great products for customer, great margin for them. Even if not exclusive, i believe the stores generally get leading margins on product, so they are the leading product recommended to customers. And still 99% ish of cyclists are rather terrible at tracking wear rates - so despite oh so many products that would deliver oh so much longer drivetrain lifespans (*in my opinion - for legal reasons) - they simply are not aware, bike store not aware.
I have been emailed by the odd bike store that have moved away from M-O as they did have sufficient evidence that the customer drivetrain lifespan was just so, so bad that it even without accurate km tracking, it was just clear enough it was just a really poor outcome for customer to have them running M-O lubricants - but again this is very very rare i think. I hope if people email this vid to their LBS, maybe some more will change - it isnt like we do not know some brilliant lubricant options they should be stocking instead - even if they think immersive waxing will take too much support time to sell, there is Rex black diamond, effetto mariposa flower power, revolubes, synergetic, ss drip, ufo drip, tru tension tungsten all weather - all of which deliver outstanding drivetrain lifespans. And yet how often do you find half of the above at an lbs vs M-O or finish line or the usual rnr line up (RnR are too bad in general - a good option 10 to 15 years ago, but things have really improved A LOT since then, and there are so many products out there that havent been updated in decades and have fallen way behind the top products now).
Recently it seems GCN has partnered with SILCA.
Adam , I commend you for your impartiality and scrutineering skills with your expose and investigative journalism to help understand "BETWEEN THE LINES" aimed at helping cycling product consumers . For this ,I wish to thank you .
Thanks Robert!
What is your opinion on Weldtite TF2 wet and dry chain lubricants as I have used these often . Also Rock and Roll Gold / Holy Cow (white clear formulation . Also Tri - Flow . Steve at TH-cam channel Ozcycle here in Australia makes a Parraffin and Teflon based formula which has been used by the Australian institute of Sport .@@zerofrictioncycling992
Thanks for all your hard work and for having the courage to present these facts. I converted to the Silca SS after reading your material. As for Muc Off, I will stop using their cleaning and other products. We don't need to support companies that lack integrity...in some way I like to think that that is a virtue cyclists aspire to...
Thanks Ovidiu and yes, i think it is too. Definitely there has been a strong trend with cyclists to want to use an enviro friendly lubricant, cleaning product etc - i think the same vein will carry over to wanting to support cycling companies of great integrity vs great concern - the main battle is getting cyclists to be aware - ZFC is still rather tiny vs muc-off, and my reach highlighting concern vs GCN / GMBN reach promoting - we have some work to do! :)
@@zerofrictioncycling992 I agree, GCN/GMBN will lose their status if they continue to promote companies that don't have high standards/ethics. They are becoming more 'commercial' and less the 'go-to' place for cycling related topics - just my take. Thanks again.
you have established your research and i thank you for all the work - Shame on muc-off!
Adam, great post...as always! Thank you!!
G'day Adam,
Thanks for showing enough ticker to take these fraudsters on. There are too many commentators who have sold out to commercial interests that by definition, adds to the misinformation industry. We all owe you.
thanks david!
My last Muc off lube went in the bin over 3 years ago, it attracted so much crap and then set solid like concrete that I couldn't clean off !! . . . Decided to stop lubing that chain and ride it till dead and throw it away. have been using other stuff that although not great is waay better. Only just found your channel so looking to try Flower power wax lube !
I was on muc-off but started researching the topic since even brand new chain was loud, metalic dry sound and overall pretty short lifespan (approx 2,5k in dry conditions). Tested effetto mariposa, loved low friction but sound was pretty average for my taste. Now on silca hot melt and so far very pleased. Smooth and fairly quiet, but wondering about the micro vibrations -is that natural, not necessarily under the heavy load, most of the time is smooth, I would say 5% max I can feel it on the cranks. Penetration issues or is that typical for that chain (Shimano 105). While on the topic is there any difference thus benefit from buying an Ultegra chain? Thank you for all the work, true scientist in pursuit of truth. Hats off.
Thanks Simon! Micro vibrations are simply that you have a thin coating of a solid lubricant between metal parts, there is just zero dampening like liquid lubricants - even drip on waxes set to more like a paste vs a solid. There are no penetration issues with immersive waxing. Shimano chains do tend to feel and sound a little more dry more quickly vs ybn, sram, campy. KMc exhibit this much worse in general. For shimano - ultegra showed only an approx 10% longevity increase vs 105, in shimano they basically use the same chain just apply siltec low friction coating to more parts in ultegra vs 105, and more again in dura ace. In general however gold rule from zfc since chain is your hardest working part by so much, dont skimp on chain and lubricant. IN shimano case there is no need to got DA vs ultegra, but 10% more for ultegra - i would still go that path - but it isnt the massive leap that can happen some sram chains where say GX is very fast wearing and X01 has astounding longevity.
IF you want great lifespan and also longer period in the silky smooth zone before micro vibration - see if the ybn sla chain is available in your country - overall the rolls royce for 11spd as fast, long wear life, and their coatings having a better wax bond. Very very popular with zfc customers - sell them about 50 to 1 vs shimano and huge % are repeat purchases over the years from very happy users.
@@zerofrictioncycling992 appreciate the throughout answer. There is gold and black one from Amazon (I live in Poland), silver would be ideal but... Definitely gonna try this Rolls Royce of a chain anyway, too curious to pass on those satisfying gains.
I already used the muc-off ceramic chain oils. Only liked the smell ;). Last times, oil based only been using Shimano Dry PTFE lube on emergency, no time for hassle or dry time.
Otherwise always drip on waxes, long time Squirt user, tested Smoove and now testing X-sauce wax(a bit too viscous and only after a heating process the wax penetrates the chain ok) and using the Silca super Secret Lube.
I use on my main road bike a combination of Molten Speed Wax plus top on Silca SS up to 1000km's and then clean and re-wax, and on my mountain bike and 2nd road bike for now molten speed wax plus top on X-sauce Wax for now(I have to empty that bottle xD and it isn't totally bad even not being great in my opinion.
So basically, I am confident that even though I can't measure watt loss or whatever, I can know how many km's I am able to do with my gear and for sure I can do a way lot more then my friends do on oil based lubricants that are sold out here. Hell.... my main road bike have 20000km's+ and my 3 chains only one got to the 0.5measure while the other 2 ins't yet at 0.25(one might have been not top notch chain or I got the treatment wrong).
Now my question is... I too use Muc-off products for cleaning and their tubeless tape(for me the best for road use by now). Can we be sure that the cleaning products are truly biodegradable? Hope I am not beeing played there...
Hi Nuno! Firstly i believe any lubricant with "ceramic" in it is a marketing con (ie finish line ceramic, Muc-Off ceramic). In my opinion. The mental model one is sold is that the lubricant has ceramic particles in it that form a hard ceramic coating on chain that is very wear resistant. Well, thats not happening. THat would be quite something to have a drip lubricant able to leave a hard ceramic coating behind!!! it would take a lot of ceramic, quite a carrier base that would need to fully evaporate, and bake on the ceramic coating. Otherwise what you have, is a token amount of tiny ceramic particles. When, oh when, has adding tiny super hard particles to a lubricant been a low friction approach?! If the lubricants do have some small amount of tiny ceramic particles, that is just adding some really bad abrasive particles to the lubricant so it can be marketed as ceramic, and a completely false mental map of what is happening .
Very glad to hear you have moved from that to the top wax products. That is saving so much wear of lovely components that take resources and energy to make and move around the world.
I havent looked into that side but i dont have any information to suspect false claims on the enviro front. And i dont want to be too quick to judge them as dishonest on every front because they have executed a completely dishonest campaign (in my opinion) re their lubricants and testing. I definitely have huge concerns from this re any and all of their marketing claims, as it seems clear to me they do not bat an eyelid to claim absolutely anything if they think it will make them more money and more market share vs competition.
So i have no specific reason to have concern on enviro or other claims, however vs mfg's that have a great track record of simply being great & honest mfg's - i think M-O claims simply carry a burden of proof - i,e i am suspicious of the claim unless it can be proven it is correct based on their - in my opinion - completely dishonest behavior on their lubricants. And who has time to investigate all the products. So if i want a bike cleaner, i will buy from a brand i have 100% confidence in from previous great behavior. I am not going to spend time to see if a really poor behaving mfg is maybe not behaving poorly on X product - they dont deserve ANY patronage at all on any front in my opinion. There are plenty of other cleaning products out there that will be just as great, if not better, and $$ going to a better place.
Great video!!! Do you already know something for checking wear of Sram flattop chains???
Hey michael thankyou! yes i have covered a little bit in chain wear checking video, in short at the moment there are a number of chain checkers claiming to check flat top and non flat top chains, but in my opinion (and very logically) these claims are incorrect. Best way for axs flat top is to measure wear using digital calipers from start of one pin to start of 10th pin. Use bottom span under tension from rear mech. New the measure will be 127mm. Replace when this measure is 127.5mm. If i find an accurate chain checker for axs flat top there will be an update in latest news
I just tension the chain and measure with a steel ruler. My limit is 1/16" over 9" on the ruler
I agree with your analysis, based on your site I started using hot wax on my chains and so happy with the procedure, it is not as much hassle as I had feared. And my chain stays clean ride after ride. Two thumbs up. I do have a question, if I want to switch to a different wax product, do I have to start with a new chain? Or just dip the old chain in boiling water to get rid of the old wax, dry and re-wx withy the new one? Thanks.
Hey saad! Ah most excellent, yes waxed life is a hoot. And no you can switch between the top immersvie wax products like mspeedwax or hot melt without needing to do any cleaning, they are completely compatible to use between each other. Other immersive waxes on the market - if they are not a largely paraffin base, it may be worth cleaning with boiling water - but at the moment i would stay with those two - though i think there are some other good products out i havent tested yet (cyclowax, velocire wax - and coming - Rex wax which IS amazing as well - thoroughly tested - stay tuned)
@@zerofrictioncycling992 Thx 🙏
@@zerofrictioncycling992 one more quick question, is it okay to spray the drivetrain with things like Bike Protect or other sprays designed to drive off moisture after washing a bike (with chain off) and then putting a waxed chain on? Or does that do bad things to the waxed chain? Thanks.
I think you have been more than fair to Muc-off. It seems like they have allowed Marketing to over-rule Engineering. Not uncommon. It happened where I used to work after change of ownership.
Thanks Ricobasso - yes i actually think marketing has not only over ruled engineering, it has led engineering down a very bad path by way of driving them to use a base that just becomes so abrasive and dirty so quickly. And as such a major mfg with huge sales, it is just so many drivetrains around the world meeting a very early death by abrasion - it is key focus of ZFC to try to lessen the waste of drivetrains and cyclists hard earned $$ by best information on what products are worth using and what are definitely best avoided - M-O are just the most concerning case by far in this space that ZFC has come across to date. I cant imagine working for a company driving carnage on drivetrain components vs working to protect and extend their lifespan.... the latter purpose is somewhat more fulfilling....
Excellent and informative video Adam.
Thanks for this video, i had bought Muc off lube, but quickly learned about waxing and switched to Mspeedwax. So much better!
I think your commentary is very well considered and fair. That said, I'd suggest not doing any reading between the lines and instead just simply report your results and maybe also include explanations about how the different testing protocols and procedures could lead to what any particular company is claiming. Let the consumer connect the dots. We can usually do that OK. Thanks for your work in this area.
Thanks wturber - check out episode 11 for more info re the testing and why there are differing results from Muc-Off, ceramic speed & more. This one is a bit difficult with regards to muc-off refusal to answer specific questions on specific concerns - so really the major concerns i have are reading between the lines - i just think the reading is pretty clear - however without being able to be absolutely definitive, personally i believe the best approach in this case is to present what i have, what conclusions / concerns this leads me to at this time, and then viewers can decide (and hopefully feedback) if they agree or disagree with what i have presented and why.
Alas i do absolutely disagree with your supposition that consumers connect the dots. If that is the case, why are a majority of cyclists buying horrendous lubricants like muc-off, like finish line and more (wend wax...) from lbs and online, all the time, and not connecting the big dot they are personally experiencing which is really poor drivetrain lifespan. What % of road cyclists accurately track chain wear & km's attained and then assess lubricant performance for them, even when their groupset costs a lot of money to replace cassette / rings. Take that % and reduce it by a factor of 100 for mtb riders. How great do you think things go when an mtb rider grabs some muc-off wet lube lathers that on, as per GMBN video's on looking after your chain viewed by hundreds of thousands of mtb riders. The dot of wet lubricant and the world of dust is not connected, unless they happen to watch ZFC vid where i connect that dot for them. That is just a quick basic example. In every area of cycling consumers struggle to see through marketing hyperbole (especially say aero claims for bikes, wheels, which also often has a lot of test data claims - how do people go connecting the dots figuring out which of the 15 bikes all happen to be the most aero in the world at the same time? - not well).
So for a more complex situation like this, i dont agree the correct approach is to put out a bunch of detail information, but not advise where i have personally arrived after considering all that information. To me that would be weird. It is not me be condescending to consumer - it is simply i am the one who is spending their working day focussed in the area of chain lubrication and presenting best knowledge i have at the time - the consumer often is not going to spend countless hours focused on chain lubrication and trying to figure who's claims to believe, and who's claims are suspect. They have their own work and lives to focus on. THere are so many area's of interest i have and it is great when experts in those areas are able to present who is seeming to be doing well, and who is selling bullshit (ie - energy vault for renewable energy storage as one quick example). it is brilliant when a channel connects the dots for me re the concerns, as i don't have time to do my own deep investigations into all area's of interest - and i think this is the same for most.
But of course, you can completely disagree with me, i may not be correct for you, i may be correct for others - its big world out there and everyone thinks differently, which in most cases = great discussion to consider other points of view and why they hold those points of view.
Hello and thanks for the valuable work you do and info you provide on such an important topic.
Is there any chance that you would know whether M-O and Juice Lubes are just the same company but with different names?
Thanks Max! Ah good question - that im not sure of - havent paid any attention to juice lubes - at this time they are just one of a thousand such companies / products - so many havent really flagged much on my radar - but next cuppa i might try do some googling - things like that wouldnt be a surprise though for a company size of M-O, that would be interesting. If you find out anything let me know :)
Hey Adam. I just recently bought a NTC chain since it was on sale for less than the price of a new chain. Now that I have it and know that the lubricant they put on there is garbage, what’s the best way to remove what’s on there so that I can use some Silca hot melt?
Thanks!
Hi - it will clean off pretty easily with any solvent (mineral turps is best if you can get it where you live cheaply, or white spirits - otherwise degreasers are perfectly groovy they just tend to be more expensive vs turps), finish with a couple of rounds of alcohol (methylated spirits). Check the chain prep guide - instructions tab on zfc website - that will step you through prepping a chain to run a top lubricant (and removing this will be same process as just removing factory grease) - zerofrictioncycling.com.au/
Thank you for that informative video. I just threw out my three bottles of C3 dry and wet lube. I have to admit, I am a Muc-Off fanboy and liked their cleaning products. At some point I moved from Finish Line Ceramic to Muc-Off Ceramic lubricant... putting my chain between a rock and a hard place.
Since I am a stickler for a clean drive and with having a garden I also have a dedicated bike cleaning station, I washed my bike and drive train usually after every other ride. So there is that, the hope that I have not f***ed my components too hard with those products.
I just ordered MSpeedwax, I was able to find a distributor here in the EU. Generally it is difficult to come by outside the US it seems.
Yes i know it is hard on many long term M-O users to watch that, but sadly unless M-O are going to be able to allay the concerns - which they so easily could if they were not a concern - we are pretty stuck re the conclusions on what they have been and are doing.
Your frequent maintenance will have helped a lot re protecting drivetrain from premature wear - c3 dry tested not bad in clean block 1 - the big problem with M-O lubricants tested is just they gather contamination and become so much more abrasive so much more quickly than any other products tested - so regular maintenance will help against that a lot - but, then overall one is now spending more money and time to solve a problem, vs other proven top options that do not have this problem.
WHen you re wax with msw and your chain comes out looking brand new again, and you have had to do no cleaning at all just re wax, and your parts lifespan is mega.... it is just a different league vs what you have been doing!! Good times ahead, and thankyou for not supporting a mfg who needs to change.
Amazing work. I will be buying Ceramicspeed UFO to replace C3 lube from Muc-Off I have been using.
thank you janusz - and that is a most excellent decision indeed, you will enjoy the switch very much, you drivetrain even much more so!
I bought Muc-off ceramic lube because the guy in my local bike shop recommended it. I could tell it wasn't very good from the first few rides. My chain got very dirty and the free spinning of the chain, which wasn't great to start with, wore off quickly.
Yes - that is a common story. I will do a vid one day covering why such products / brands so prevalent in stores and thus recommended. It is great for the store (high margin brand for them vs others, and some stores are not adverse to customers having high parts wear as that may lead to more component sales) - but it is not great for the customer following the bike store advice. A vastly better way for stores to go - if they can wrap their heads around it - is to look after customer to best of their ability, and the customer will look after them. If they recommend you onto a crap product, you are less likely to go back for more. If they put you onto a great product and you are happy, you are vastly more likely to go back to them not just for that product, but for advice and purchases in other areas as you trust them and that they understand looking after your interests = they are also ensuring their own long term success. SHort term high margin at the cost of customer confidence in their advice and recommendations and lower rate of customer return is just....... not very smart. In my opinion. Bike store owners tell me why i am incorrect!
@@zerofrictioncycling992 yeah what you describe is exactly what I was thinking. If I can't get good advice on this relatively low cost lubricant product then how can I trust them to advise me on other more expensive products etc. Thanks for taking the time to respond....and for running your site.
Thanks! Keep up the good work ;)
Hello from Canada!!!Your you tube channel is the best out there all fact no friction lol.I used to use the nano lube then I watched some of Josh's videos at silca and now I do the ss hot wax after an ultrasonic clean and ss drip to maintain the chain and I'd never go back to useing nano or anything else for that matter.They(muckoff) should be ashamed for misleading us cyclists like that!!!Although I do like muckoff's waterless bike cleaner and their degreasers because there supposed to be environmentally friendly unless thats a lie too...I have one question if you don't mind did you use the same chain type and manufacturer for all the lubricant wear test?
Hi Glenn! Firstly thankyou for the feedback, i am very glad you are easily impressed as i am not a very good presenter / speaker (will keep slowly working on it....), but at least i can be on solid ground re the information itself being presented in the vids! And yes i used to use muc-off cleaning products back in the day too until i started to have concerns re what type of company they may be.
All major industries i think have companies that are great companies in the space, some that do ok overall, and some bad actors. I think it would be wishful thinking indeed to think that cycling doesnt also have some manufacturers who completely lack morals when it comes to maximising profits. No marketing angle to be left unexplored, and let us do whatever we like especially if we can get away with basically any claim as their is no accountability.
From the long, long investigation into what on earth is going on and M-O re their marketing, data, testing, AND their lubricants performance vs others in ZFC control testing, AND their complete inability to answer key questions / allay key concerns - it really has become - in my opinion - pretty clear what they have been doing, and continue to do. I believe they have been a very bad actor indeed re all this, and i do not believe they are worthy of consumers support until one day there is a complete clear out of the exec levels and a reset of the company culture. Google credit suisse and see what that bank gets up to. That is just one example of hundreds where you just would not believe what company cultures can exist out there. I personally think that M-O is doing some really poor behaviors for the mighty $$, and i would like to see manufacturers who deliver genuinely great products, and honest behavior, be rewarded with consumers patronage instead.
oh and sorry forgot to answer your question - yes of course all tests are conducted on shimano ultegra 11spd chains. There is always going to be some variance - overall from a huge amount of data from the best chain test project with cycling tips where 28 chains were tested using 28 ultegra as control vs the chain on test, i could confirm a test variance of +/- 5% overall at worst (usually +/- 1 to 2%). So, when its 5.9% wear vs 89% at same point in a test etc, we have a super concrete result.... Full test protocol is on website and also an earlier episode displaying testing and contamination etc
@@zerofrictioncycling992 Thanks for answering my question Adam.I knew you used the same chains for your test just didn't know which one.After seeing your results for chain life I have switched to xtr chains both 11 and 12 speed (chain eating ebikes)but for my 11 speed I saw shimano offering the e-8000 chain claiming to last 50% longer then the slx chain so I bought 1 of those and a xtr chain we'll see how long it lasts,Once again thank you and keep up the awesome work!!!
I used to use Muc-Off lubes before I found ZFC, both the wet and dry lubes. I can agree with ZFC, their lubes are garbage, I was going through chains like crazy. Lube wouldn't last longer than a couple of rides. I have now changed to Silca synergetic and it's been night and day. I also find Muc-Off products overpriced. It's all just marketing hype.
thanks for taking the time to post comment of your experience tony, the more exposure of real world experience the better for others to see and know, and hopefully avoid very expensive mistake.
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
Thank you!
I used to run Muc Off, on the basis that it was reportedly cleaner and lower resistance than anything else.
Even the dry lube was nightmarish to clean, it just collected dirt and detritus, and always felt sluggish.
I've since never touched muc off products again, and push others to avoid them.
Still watching, so interesting to see your conclusions.
Just finished up, what caught me off guard was the increase in wear from using squirt lube, something I've never observed.
But perhaps that's because my baseline was mucoff which was truly appalling.
if you thought their dry lube was dirty, dare someone you dont like much to try their top products like ludicrous AF or hydrodynamic or nano!! Holy batman....... After a few rides one would think you applied crude oil.
when I started cycling couple years ago, I wondered, how come all my chains lasts only roughly 1000km, I was using muc-off dry, wet and ceramic variations (I havent used any other brand). And I ride only when weather is nice, if I get rain on its was part of my bad planning. I am cleaning the bike and chain regularly. now I discovered your site and channel and it seems explains it :) the lubes are crap... I was given silca super secret (I wont bother with immersion waxing for now) so lets see how it gonna compare to the muc-off
ah exciting times - please make sure you update here! :)
This strikes me as an indictment of Muc-off based mostly on conjecture. It comes across as a rambling presentation, and I can't argue for or against your position because I can't follow it. FWIW, my background is in engineering. I spent my career designing and testing medical devices, which all received FDA approval. My only point in mentioning this is that I am very familiar with the concept of rigorous product testing,
Thanks for the feedback steep trails - apologies for the typically rambling nature of my presentations - i will be continually working on improving - it is not my natural forte at all. I do not believe the extremely similar, and extremely high - wear rates for the 3 top M-O lubricants tested, and how this bodes for remaining low friction - is conjecture. There is going to be a pretty big link between wearing hardened steel parts at that rate and an accompanying increase in friction to achieve that wear rate. The concerns re how they test are again stepped out sufficiently that you can see overall this has been well understood (and covered more thoroughly in episode 11). FWIW i receive A LOT of emails from engineers of all types around the world, and scientists - praising ZFC testing and video's for the level of work being done and methods used. This is not to say i cannot improve, i am the first to admit public speaking / presenting is not my natural happy place. I will definitely ponder why this particular engineer was unable to follow when the majority of viewers below would not be engineers and were able to follow. If you can highlight specifically where / what points i lost you - i can try to understand and do better in future presentations.
thanks for your work and information, I had "MAC OFF" on the radar to try but it's not anymore. I will stick with hot wax, it seams to be well worth the effort
Wow. Thanks for all the valuable information. Been using Ludicrous AF for a while and was always kind of shocked by how quickly the chain got dirty, or shall I say Muc-y. Having overlooked this, it lead to a very sticky chain on one particular ride - resulting in poor shifting and the chain coming off. I lost my confidence in muc off products...
yes they sure know how to do marketing, if only they would address the concerns in the video that i have been asking them for around 5 years on most.... welcome to a much cleaner, lower friction path now - not even know what you are moving too - it will be cleaner and lower friction i am sure! :)
@@zerofrictioncycling992 Being a marketing professional myself, I'd like to respectfully disagree with your statement "they know how to do marketing". In my opinion, marketing can never be about manipulating the customer - it should be about making a great product in the first place, and then finding thoughtful/effective/creative/funny/... ways of communicating said product to their potential customers.
@@moodrootman i wish that was what marketing actually was. That is a utopia version that sadly is just not followed by so many. Marketing is about convincing people to buy your companies products, period. In some market segments there are strict regulatory rules around what you can claim vs what you deliver (ie a financial manager in australia who wants to keep their licence can't promise guaranteed returns of 200% per annum). In other markets - manufacturers can and do claim whatever they like with near zero accountability. And this is marketing, in the real world, not the idealised version. I wish i could agree with you, just - sadly - you are talking about what it should be, not what it is.
Hence why zfc is here and working so hard to highlight companies who are delivering great products to market that match claims, and try to hold to some account companies that are behaving very badly, and going against what you believe - help by ensuring all your cycling friends watch and know re a very poor example
@@zerofrictioncycling992 many things we enjoy today, or even take for granted, were once considered utopian. Not everything needs to be regulated by government authorities… people are not stupid and truth reigns in the end, it’s just a matter of time.
@@moodrootman again - i wish. I dont think you have seen the countless channels with millions of subscribers, where the channel (pic a subject) puts out the most stupidly obvious complete rubbish content, and how that is gobbled up by the millions. Truth / fact to many does not matter. What rules is feelings / emotion. Despite living in an age where information is at our fingertips, sadly the species seems to rapidly getting dumber. Just follow some stuff by say joe rogan. Or the scams covered by coffezilla. Look at people like logan paul who has repeatedly scammed millions of his own followers - proven by coffezilla, and yet the millions of followers are still there....
How is the world doing overall on climate change? And just look at the absolute rubbish that comes out to tackle that, like hydrogen for cars, and carbon capture and storage - things which keep getting - globally - billions of dollars of government subsidy funding because then it sounds to their constituents like they are doing something re climate change - yet even 15 mins of research by anyone with more than about 58 IQ would find how unbelievably flawed and will never get off the ground these techs are.
What about lobbyists who push laws that benefit their business vs the people, with oh so many laws driven to protect the capital interests of some very big industries, who then keep those politicians campaigns funded - despite many of these laws being rather terrible for the consumer / population.
What about politician insider trading - have you seen how many are like the most unbelievable share traders ever (check out say nancy pelosi, and many more) - despite new laws in place (which were written to fail to enforce anything), and all the investigations, PROVING the insider trading so they make tens of millions, and yet nothing done to prevent.
The truth just does not do so well these days.... I wish i had your rose coloured glasses!
"Cycling's most dishonest marketing?"
I think many manufacturer's talk bs about their products.
This has been a part of the business model of many manufacturer's for decades - producing crap ( or what I've noticed since the 2000's, well known brands constantly reducing their quality each year) while prices continue to increase.
And what I've noticed with niche markets, like biking, is gross over-pricing, and constantly changing tech and introducing "innovations" for what I think is the primary motive of increased sales, one way, conditioning folks to upgrade or have the newest "trending" bit of kit.
As for chain lubing, I hot wax. To me worth the extra effort compared to oil lubing.
Theres a bit there - firstly yes, many do, but there are also some mfg who are genuinely bringing great products to market - ZFC is working hard to help consumers tell whom is doing what.
There is also definitely a lot of overpricing, but then there is also in some cases simple fact of scale. Cycling product scale is nothing like say automotive. Again it can take some time to work out on a particular product is it just re branded something and over priced with bike tax, or is the price also factoring in small mfg scale and recouping costs invested in bringing the product to market.
Similarly innovations - some are stupid, or such a tiny step, accompanied with marketing hyperbole laid on thick. Other steps forwards are steps forward, or, at least it is a test - how will it be received by the market. I have nothing against this as such, as at the end of the day - we need good companies to be profitable. We want good engineers passionate about cycling to have a future in cycling, and they are going to have a passion to bring out new tech, new tweaks - that is what they are going to live for. If i had a son or daughter who that was their passion and path, i would want them to have a great career at a great company - and part of that would be bringing new tech and new tweaks of existing tech to market - that is what these peoples jobs are. SOmetimes what is brought out is bullshit, sometimes it is a great step overall. At the end of the day consumers have to take some responsibility - if no one buys crap, crap goes away. Ie i am very happy to see cdale finally ditch assymetric wheels and proprietary offset crank - ffs - what is that about. IMO that should have a) never come to market and b) never stayed so long. I would never ever ever ever ever ever have bought one of their bikes with that. No that it is ditched, if something happened to my gravel bike, for sure a lab 71 topstone would be on the short list.
Some things are VERY annoying, like the 4.7 billion bb standards, sram coming out with DUB with 1mm smaller ID vs very common 30mm etc - i 100% agree on things like that, but others - for sure i want engineering boys and girls continually driving the future.
@@zerofrictioncycling992 That's why I said "many" manufacturers...not all.
Camelbak is one example of ( I assume) bike enthusiasts making actual quality products for a decent price. I bought a pair of water bottles that've lasted for years ( though I've only done 4000km in that time), due to quality materials used and thoughtful design ( compared to other brands of similar price, and their bottles are crap)
And I have no problems with technological improvements.
I deeply appreciate the front shocks on my HT, and the old school 26" Giant ATX 970 duelie I just acquired for $100AU...previous owner only using it for urban riding. Now I have a mild dualie perfect for my mild XC riding, and will do me for years to come.
I also appreciate disk brakes, for they're better in the wet and maintanence costs are far less than rim brakes...and clamp on grips.
My primary concern is business owners and operaters who's primary motive is profit...and that's when elements are introduced that has little to nothing to do with rider enjoyment or efficiency\effectiveness from those products...rather, it's about brainwashing folks into buying things marketing says are better.
I'm also thankful for people such as yourself, sharing your experiences and research knowledge to help folks choose better products and possibly even learn how many owners and operates of companies that care little about riding or riders, and only produce to make money, scamming people with pointless or unnecessary products.
Interesting - my 2019 29" HT is far more sluggish on my XC route ( an abandoned railway track turned into a hiking biking trial), than my much older $5 local tip bought Avanti HT 26"er, which I added 27.5" wheels, late model forks and same gearing setup as the 29er. The Avanti, with smaller wheels runs way better then the 29er.
One example of possible bs marketing - ever widening bars. My 29er came with 720mm, and I trimmed it down to 640mm ( smallest I could go to accomodate the cockpit componentry), which reduces wrist pain and numbness.
Perhaps wide bars suits downhilling, but not for mild XC that I enjoy, and I have no doubt the marketing people and parroters will claim wider is better.
Bottom line for me, and the advice I offer for others - do your own research, do your own experimenting and listen to other rider's experiences, don't just believe what manufacturers and bike shop owners or staff say. Don't be seduced by the marketing BS, as real world experiences determines the efficency or effectiveness of a product.
When you do what you do, there will come a time when you must decide to speak truth to power - or simply fail to keep it real and join the marketing BS. Science or popularity contest.
Love your work.
Do you look at motorcycle chains? Love to hear your thoughts on cleaning x-ring chains using ultra-sound and hot wax immersion.
Thanks Baron, and no not really - the losses with o rings / x rings for motorcycle chains are far too high for cycling, but for most motorcycles it is not of any consequence - ie if its 50w loss but the bike is putting out 80,000watts, or 150,000 watts etc - it really doesnt matter at all, and its dwarfed by losses in tires, gearbox, aero etc etc - so even for racing they just buy new DID chains and run them as is as the lubricant is sealed behind the o-ring.
Could it be that the cheaper ones from Mucoff are actually better? i used the Muc off drylube with PTFE last season on m Gravel and the drivetrain is superclean and i couldn't measure any wear for over 1000km. I still ride the same chain and still no wear and very happy with the PTFE drylube. Gravelriding obviously intruduces a lot of dirt even humidity and i am almost 100kg so lot of tension on all my uphill sessions. I have to say that i have tested the C3 drylube and see a lot more gunk on my drivetrain so less of a good experience there.
i think it is likely, that in many real world riding applications - the cheaper M-O products may be much lower wear than their higher level products, which appear to use a base specifically to be ok with FTT testing in a lab, but that absorb contamination like a sponge and become very abrasive. c3 dry has outtested ludicrous / nano etc.
Unfortunately it did not last long enough to get to wet contamination block, and number of M-O lubricants are a bit notorious for being extremely poor in wet - i would have liked to control test that, but it just didnt make it very deep into test, and i dont have time faff a separate test just for them being poor.
I have sooooo much testing to do and so getting to any other M-O budget lubricants anytime soon is not likely. All evidence suggests that if you are happy with a budget M-O lubricant, a proven high performing option will blow your socks off.
@@adamkerin4130 i am by no means a M-O fanboy, i just found the yellow PTFE drylube to be the best lube i have every used and also i found a couple of fictiontests on the internet that suggest a very low friction. As said the Green Drylube C3 is certainly worse the yellow one, but almost double the price. would be interesting if the cheap one is actually the best haha. but maybe someday you will have the time to test. but as you said i should probably test something like the Mariprosa, seems like a good and easy to use lube. by no means am i a professional, i am just a passionate engineer looking for a good "drylube" for all my bikes since i usually use them for dirt, gravel and gravity.
Hi, Adam. I've been reading about solid lubricant quite a bit, most of my reading stated that WS² is superior than MoS². However, there's 1 research I found that stated WS² does not sticks onto metal surface as well as MoS².
Hence, my question is, can WS² and MoS² mix together, or it will be redundant and waste of money? I really don't know anyone else to ask this question since I can't find the answer anywhere myself.. 😅
@Matt have you done it before? What happen?
I have engineering background, hence the curiosity level is above average 😅. Couldn't find any resource/research on the internet that done this
@@apit_zixxer Hi Apit! Lubricants are a pretty high tech area overall indeed. Ie i imagine the studies are not specific to bicycle chains, nor wax base lubricants etc. A lot of the research on moly vs ws2 is for racing engines or other motor sport applications. Adherence is a different issue in different base lubricants, temperatures, pressures etc etc. Moly was used for a long long time in mspeedwax, Silca really was the first (i think) to go to ws2 for hot melt after a lot (A LOT) of testing. There are not too many secrets in the industry at some levels, and mspeedwax new proper competition was coming, and so they had also been testing new blends and ratio's for a years before release of v2. They were pretty reluctant to move to ws2 as its double the cost of moly unless there was absolutely a tangible benefit to doing so - and i think the fact they also moved, and we can see in the ZFC control testing how improved v2 is vs original formula - it seems that ws2 is definitely working well in the waxes. And, synergetic uses ws2 in wet lubricant and that is the only drip lubricant to date tested with a 0.0% wear in the first 1000km test block. There are either less issues re adherence for bicycle chain application, or they negated it.
@@zerofrictioncycling992 thanks for the insight. Appreciate it 👍
Just got a bottle ready to use. Won’t be doing that now! Bikes on the turbo at the moment so not the end of the world.
Yep - for ergo it wont be that bad thankfully, just still compared to the top lubricant options known........ but another part for me is simply what manufacturers deserve to be supported with our hard earned $$ - manufacturers who have invested and worked genuinely very hard to bring a genuinely great product to market, vs manufacturers who "MAY" be using convincing but concerning marketing (in my opinion) to sell a ton of - in my opinion based on robust testing, average to terrible products. Overall the more cyclists that support manufacturers doing a great job for cyclists vs acting in a concerning matter, i think this is better for the future. One day, I am sure, M-O will release a great lubricant. I think a complete change of culture (which means a complete change of exec leadership) will be needed before that happens, current culture (in my opinion) is to milk the existing cash cow due to overall lack of knowledge by cyclists & LBS re lubricant performance and a very well resourced marketing department. I am trying to work on the former of these two things...
We all know advertising has a lot of BS, but with all the bike nerds, this is the wrong industry to try to pull this. Respect.
Hey Al! Ah i really wish that was true in this area! Alas, lubricant performance claims and testing has been the wild west, manufacturers can do and claim whatever they like. Lubricant performance is EXTREMELY hard even for competent tech writers to review, about 99% of lubricant reviews on cycling websites are just re wording of the marketing provided to the tester, with the usual "felt noticeably smooth even after X riding through X conditions" endorsement. But it is impossible to assess a lubricant (unless something goes very wrong) in a few rides, there is absolutely zero tangible data, everything is subjective feel, and we just are not a precision instrument. It is not difficult to find a lot of absolutely glowing reviews on major cycling websites for proven absolutely terrible products.
And cyclists themselves are also unfortunately largely very ineffective, because few accurately track wear rate km's (not helped by the huge range of inaccurate chain wear checkers from major brands) - but even when Rider A attains X kms to 0.5% on Y lubricant - by and large they think that well that must be a decent result - on the bottle / website it says it is doing all this amazing stuff, so i reckon if i wasnt using this, my kms achieved would have been notably less. And so people just keep buying very very average or poor products.
There are a thousand+ lubricants all trying to get traction in the market. and when there has been / is extremely little in the way of objective testing - everyone is just shouting a whole bunch of claims that may or may not have any bearing on reality, and are never pulled up for it. So many great products have made very little penetration as they do not have the marketing of a muc-off or finish line or wend wax, whilst those terrible (in zfc opinion) products have enormous market penetration - in M-O and finish line case over a very long period of time - due to effective marketing - cyclists by and large have not caught on or these line ups would not dominate 90% of the shelf space of 90% of bike stores for so long.
I have a lot of work to do still....and i sure need all who are on board to help! :)
I have been using M-O dry lube on my new MTB bike. Maybe 500km so far and didn't notice much of the black stuff as other mentioned. I clean my chain after every ride. BUT, what I noticed is that the KMC 12s chain is louder than new. The lube barely works for like 30-40km ride, but it is quite clean. I had used Shimano PTFE oil on previous bike and my chain was a total mess after every ride. My cassette was completely black and dirty, as well as chain. It was hard to clean and everything stuck to it. I don't believe any marketing BS. It was cheap and had many positive reviews on the e-shop I bought it off. I need to try some liquid wax now.
I am even more confused with this test: th-cam.com/video/FbFNrnQ4QUo/w-d-xo.html . And I wanted to buy Squirt. 😕
Thanks Cort - yes the dry is not the horrific mess of the lubricants tested to date in this video, it is just..... well, rather less lubricating. Unfortunately user reviews for lubricants are a terrible guide. How many cyclists are basing off something tangible of one product vs another? How are they assessing it is a great lubricant? is it because the bottle says so? or is it because the bike store said so (and the bike stores make great margin on m-o, and some are not adverse to customers needing to replace components regularly). Even for media lubricants are exceptionally difficult for them to accurately review - taking the advice of the average punter who is not accurately tracking wear rates of X lubricants vs y competitors - all you will get is basically they think X may be fairly clean if it is a dry lube, and it seems to be a lubricant. But if it wears their chain to 1.5% wear in 12 months and they have to replace chain and cassette, and a competitor product that is much better only wore to say 0.75% in same period but they still were told they need a new chain and cassette - 99% of cyclists still just have zero idea if what they are running is actually performing, and how much friction and wear and cost they could save if they paid attention to wear etc.
this is really a big part of why zfc exists - it is just nearly impossible for the average rider to tell what is a high performing product or not, and as any mfg can claim anything they like - having independent data from an extremely robust test is very helpful for those who do look into.
@@zerofrictioncycling992 Thanks to your research and reply! 👍 What about the chain stickiness with Squirt lube in SMB video? I guess I won't notice it with any wax lube when the chain will be under tension?
I watched oz cycle's channel on how to make a paraffin lube, but I am kind of worried about using naphta. I am not an english native speaker so got a bit of a problem with translation. Looks like it could be "technical gasoline" we use here, but they claim it damages paint and rubber, so I don't think it is a good idea.
@@cortkatanakx1q ah i think i did my own video on that if its the one im thinking of - it was a really poor video - wax drip lubricants need a set time, so testing how much contamination sticks when they are still wet - thats a pretty stupid test. Why not test a gp5000 tire without inflating it etc. Products need to be tested following the products instructions - and wax emulsion lubricants need a set time for the carrier to evap off leaving just the wax coating behind. Then wax lubricants have far superior dust contamination resistance vs wet lubricants. I have no idea why he would test so stupidly / poorly. i commented as such on the video plus made a video of my own stepping through all the bad errors that just give the wrong information to viewers.
As best as i can tell, Oz cycle pulled much of his info for his blend out of his butt. It is not difficult at all to make a good DIY wax, just get a good base wax like gulf canning wax, and really from there - any additives are optional but not necessary for many DIY waxers. The rest of the information is really to give the vids actual content vs it being 1 minute long just use canning grade / food grade paraffin. ie - how did he arrive at 50 frigging grams of PTFE per pound when msw / ufo used to be 5grams - before like all good players moving away from PTFE?
I have a document on website - instructions tab - titled ""That oz cycle video" where i step through the very concerning errors in his testing of his blend vs msw, and also, i cant understand how anyone still watches and supports him considering he is this guy;
www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-07/court-hears-dog-beaten-by-steven-john-leffanue-had-severe-trauma/101132362?fbclid=IwAR10wEsMyGO61Gys4EvxNQGZRbsrtoNqK6GqYiAbKlkARNJmOG3v2m4rJBw
@@zerofrictioncycling992 Holly sheeet, I didn't know that! I must say that I found his behavior in front of camera a bit odd and now I know why.
I always was a DIY-er, so why not start waxing chains? Heck, I do service for my bike anyway. OK, another time eater, challenge accepted!
The two worst chain lube that I have tried are Muc off and Woolftooth. The both attract dirt, turn black and accumulate on everything that they touch. The two brands formulation even seems similar in appearance.
yes i am way overdue getting to detail reviews but about to start on the back log very soon now that i have sorted some background data updates on cost to run modelling so i have the more accurate modelling when doing the reviews - but WT-1 is really bady, very disappointed as they are a company that generally puts out very good quality products - i have a theory behind whats happened - stay tuned.
No bike chain ever has a steady load on it. Even a fixed gear bike would have a slack unloaded side to it. What I wonder is how the internal wear metals go with a wax lubricant. Unless you can put the chain into an ultrasonic cleaner that can melt wax, I don't get it. My experience is that hot waxed chains also rust like nails. With all the effort of waxing chains, I have had mediocre results as far as longevity for each treatment. Agreed, oil based lubricant picks up contamination faster, but ease of cleaning and relube has to count for something. $90-$100 saved on lubricant buys a few chains. If you're not racing, and mainly riding fixies in dry road conditions you'll not see meaningful benefits. Fixie chains aren't very expensive and the 1/8" chainrings and sprockets last a very long time. Good topic, but boutique lubricants are mostly for shareholders benefit!
That is correct re the load, which is why wax lubricants are able to reset as needed through the bottom span, and why FTT test machines can only be accurate for very short runs. Which M-O know, and know that 4hr long runs produce - what they wanted to produce re test results. (in my opinion). What dont you get about wax and internal wear metals? I am not sure what you mean. The chain is not water proof, wax penetrates with no issue via immersive application, ultrasonic is not remotely necessary. The record breaking wear rates from uncountable immersive waxers in real world cycling are proof enough of that on top of control testing. Rusting is also not an issue for most, and those that ride a lot in wet and salted roads - all they have to do is either re wax, or wipe and apply a wax compatible drip lubricant to tide over until re waxing next. I am not sure what you are doing or using What wax are you using?
There is no easier or cheaper way to clean your chain than just re wax it. How is solvent flush cleaning a chain cheaper and easier than this (and it is much less effective at preventing wear). We are not taling 90 to 100 saved for most, we are talking many hundreds to even thousands saved depending on groupset components and riding. Sure if you chains and parts are cheap - there is a lot less to worry about, but if your cassette costs $700 and rings $1500 and chain $150, whoa there is a lot to worry about, and all levels in between.
And all that aside - we have the integrity of companies in question - from great companies in this space that deserve to be highlighted, to very concerning behavior that needs to be held to some account. In my opinion...
Muc-off might as well be called Rip-off. I tried their Hydrodynamic Lube and initially it acts as a good lubricant but within a short period of time it became a black sticky mess that took a long time to clean off the drive train. The only Muc-off product that I still occasionally use is Silicon Shine but will use a cheaper silicone product in the future for my suspension stanchions.
Yes i could go into quite a lot more with many of their products (ie the ultrasonic cleaner they sell for circa A$1200 - IF that is a high quality unit of that size - the best you will find through like GT sonic / Elma etc will cost around $500. If it a cheap one like VEVOR - which are good for the price - then its about a $A70 unit - so it is somewhere between a $70 and $500 unit with muc-off branding on the front being flipped for A$1200. And their uber wax kit is likely to be the equivalent of a something circa $20 in automotive world flipped for $100, and yeah i could go on. In many instances - M-O are not alone re a lot of that sort of commercial behaviour, but they are certainly at the more..... energetic end of such behavior.
However the situation with their lubricants really is quite different re a) the extremely abrasive performance (and yes, what a mess they make) and b) The - in my opinion - extremely dishonest behaviour, which must be driven from the top - to do what they have done with their testing.
In my view they should not be supported with sales for any products until their corporate culture of dishonesty (in my opinion) is changed. I feel sorry for the no doubt hundreds and hundreds of honest and very hard working M-O employees who have the current corporate culture going on above them.
The uk managed to get rid of the couldnt lie straight in bed boris johnson, maybe a upper level coroporate change at M-O will happen one day, and it will be a new dawn for them.
@@zerofrictioncycling992 Thanks for the reply. I could not agree more but it just goes to show the power of advertising and branding that we all succumb to sometimes. BTW I was not duped by the Boris Johnson advertising but many were...just another lying politician sadly. He would fit in well with MO.
I was suspicious after GP Lama did the metal airpod holder test.
The number one problem I see is that using a given set of test apparatus is useless once a given chain lubricant manufacturer decides to go out on a possibly unwise tangent as far as testing methods are concerned . They may be taking benchmarking , preparation and exact process likely not being of commonality to rival firms , in due course making claims that are hard to reference and align or justify with private house inconsistencies .
Overall yes. Without a governing standard (which would be complex as it needs to cover everything from key equipment such as torque sensors and chain tension to ring and cog size, to test temp and humidity, to ring and cog size, and cadence, - to chain prep, calibration protocol and actual test protocol etc). without a governing agreed standard, then all the facilities currently doing outright efficiency testing report rather wildly different results in most cases. Ie M-O testing has squirt at 8.6w, Ceramic speed 4.8w - pretty big difference for two fancy test facilities reporting on what a lubricants losses are. Such discrepancies are not seen in industry if two test facilities are testing a lubricant to the same ATSM standard.
And without a governing standard, if one facility wants to test in such away that "cooks the books" in their favour - their is nothing to stop them and have them claim their test method is the superior one vs competitor.
it is a hot mess, which little ZFC's wear correlation test helps to clarify who is doing what.
I tried muc off for one 200km ride in gravel , and basically was the last time . It is a goopy mess that attracts any and all type of dirt or mud. Was clearly a product that did not do what it said it would do , basically just a fancy bottle with nice smell , grrreeeeaaatt that’s what I want out of my lube . Pro link was basically the best lube I’ve ever used on cleaner rides , any liquid wax on dirty rides . Since muc off is goopy , I now use it on parts that require stickiness , such as cables or shifting lube points . I don’t even look at it as a chain lube , pretty obvious it is not a chain lube , and no real rd was done by this company.
Thanks for taking the time to comment, it is really important for others to see just how many people try M-O once and have your experience! I get a lot of emails re this too. I do not understand how anyone could stick with m-o wet lubricants past a ride or two, they are the dirtiest i have ever seen.
I would have it somewhere from the friction facts days, but alas pro link gold tested pretty poorly - it was 50th out of 55 lubricants tested by friction facts at 7w loss which is REALLY HIGH, and their claims of condition chain over time a) the claimed process defies physics and logic and b) velolab tested this in conjunction with friction facts and the claim did not bore out in reality. It might be clean and overall pleasant but i can assure you that for a wet lubricant - Rex black diamond, Silca Synergetic or revolubes will deliver VASTLY better performance and parts longevity.
Also not entirely sure re stickiness desirable for cables!! i want lowest friction possible. I use time trial grease in my cables and they are lightning smooth and light and stay that way for until time to preemptively replace inner and outer (every circa 10,000km ish) to keep everything oh so amazing. Stickiness on pivots... the lube will stay on sure, but stickiness also will have contamination, and an over time abrasive lubricant on pivots is just a bad for them as it is for your chain. Effective dry spray lubricants are my preferred for pivots.
As a bicycle mechanic. I'm always on a quest to find a decent lube for all round cycling. General workshop use. I don't have scientific evidence to back up what I see. Unfortunately. Muc off is going to get a bashing from me, its the worst lubricant ever, I can tell when a drivetrain has been applied with it. The customer usually confirms when I ask. It turns to what can only be compared to is glue. And it take ages to clean it off. Hideous stuff
Indeed, and it makes me wonder how the stores that stock and push M-O somehow dont notice this on their customers drivetrains, and if they could be looking after them better. The industry needs more mechanics like yourself that are going to call it out and ensure the shop is running something from a mfg that deserves a place on shelves and will give a great outcome to that shops customers .
I tried loads of them. Got sick of the hype. I have 2 chains. I run one for 500k, take it off the bike and clean it in kerosene, then alcohol. After drying, use Finish Line Wet, and wipe off the outside. They wear very slowly, don't look dirty and handle rain. It is all a compromise with reality. Nothing lasts forever.
Testing reference enforcement by government agencies could be the only answer by having a test " STANDARD CODE OF COMPLIANCE" that would be a step in the right direction .
I tried a muc-off lubricant... tossed it in the trash after one use. The journey continues.
that is a pretty common feedback for M-O wet lubricants!
The fairest of fair weather lubes. Delicately blended from the laughter of children and the tears of orphaned baby seals.
Besides very few bike brands, the marketing jargon based on lies, and false statements, "stiffer, faster, lighter" bla bla it is all the same for most of the brands.
Yes unfortunely in so, so many commercial things the marketing is a nightmare for us. I have to check and check and check independent reviews on most everything i buy if it is even relatively important or expensive. And some areas even that is very hard as most reviews the reviewers are paid (try and find a non sponsored review for anti wrinkle cream!! Every single product you check, all you find is amazing reviews, and they are all by influencers getting free stuff to say it is amazing etc). So some product areas are even worse than - but.... at least a MEH moisturizer wont take your face out with it, unlike a poor lubricant choice that can eat though A LOT of $$ of lovely components.
And when we have basically the most abrasive products we have seen, with the most powerful and clever marketing as well as very clever and powerful commercial strategy re penetration into bike stores..... I just wish they would answer the concerns raised at least vs running away from all questions to show some integrity. Alas, i will be doing what i can to try to hold some accountability to the most concerning actors for the time im doing ZFC
Thank you and all the people in the comments...just got back into mtb world and got myself trek fuel ex 5...and ofc they sold me muc off all weather lube plus shampoo combo...now i won't use it ....tnx...beers on me
Your clean unadulterated information is greatly appreciated! Way to many companies in the bike industry are ruled by Mary rather than engineering. Thanks for this!
It was great for freeing up a seized pad lock.....not for my chain
You may have received this feedback from others. I say this with respect due to how thoroughly you address the issues you are discussing. Less is more. People want the short version or you loose them if it's more than a few minutes. Is that good? No! However, that's what people want. So, get to the bottom line, a lot sooner in the video. You will get more views and subs. 😊
yes correct- i promise i am working on it..... i am just rather terrible at speaking. and being concise. I have a condition! but i am working on it.... I might need a therapist
Once upon a time in the 1980’s I used engine oil asa chain lube…didn’t care about watts? Only cared about a silent chain! So to fast forward to now I dont care about watts…..only a silent bike, so I use squirt.
Marketing and the bicycle industry has gone nuts.
ah very glad to hear you have moved away from engine oil! That is definitely not the best option, and one can absolutely have a silky smooth and silent drivetrain, AND extremely low friction and wear day in day out. Squirt is a solid option. In zfc opinion there are definitely better options avail now, check out the latest news update on effetto mariposa flower power wax lubricant, no pesky penetration issues like squirt has, long lasting, lowest wear rate across test for any drip lubricant tested to date, very environmentally friendly, and it is SUPER smooth to ride. Absolutely brilliant new product.
Market has gone nuts because lubrication is big big business. And, when may mfg can simply re bottle an existing lubricant developed by X for Y purpose as a bicycle chain lubricant, and they have complete open slather to claim whatever they want re the lubricant performance for a bicycle chain , it is for many very tempting to just step in to this market and have a crack. Other mfg's actually invest big $$ and human capital is a lubricant that is developed specifically for use on a bicycle chain, AND sometimes the result is not as hoped, but sometimes it is and the product is genuinely outstanding. ZFC works hard to highlight the products that are absolutely outstanding, and hold to account the worst products & marketing discovered.
Now go out and treat yourselves with that $100 Muc Off bucket bundle. Totally worth it 🤣
I must say i have seen some pretty comprehensive car cleaning bundles for a lot less........ but remember tis all part of the very clever commercial model - rrp is priced such that retailers can make industry leading margins - hence the huge online and lbs market penetration by M-O. When you have a lot of big bills to pay (staff, electricity, insurance, stock) - high margin products are very hard for most to pass on. So M-O price for great lbs margin and with enough margin left after that to make it viable for importers, and M-O to all make good margin. I don't criticize this at all, it is simply a very astute business strategy and it is a commercial world at the end of the day - i have nothing against LBS or M-O being profitable of course, thats the aim after all for everyones hard work - i just wish the lubricants they have been so successful at getting onto LBS shelves the world over werent so horrific to ones drivetrains (in my extremely robustly tested opinion).
When does the content actually start?
sorry i like to ensure full context and information. i am unlikely to be a channel suitable for you!
Goodness gracious, Man. The bike lube industry is THEE most scam infested part of this wonderful hobby/sport. I've used plain motor oil for decades and NEVER had an issue. Never. Sure, I clean it a little more often (I clean my chain while it's still ON the bike BTW), But it doesn't take long, using motor oil is VERY cheap, and my chains last almost forever. Enough of the madness.
Ha! Well what can i say other than ignorance in your case is definitely bliss, and willful ignorance / everything is a scam seems even more so! :)
Erm...... no, motor oil is not going to be the best and or lowest wear bicycle chain lubricant by a long shot. When you say enough of the madness and your chains last forever etc - how about backing that with some solid data ie how many kms to a genuine 0.5% wear etc.
Lubrication is a very specific field. There is a reason they dont use motor oil in bearings for instance, but use grease. There is a reason why wax rocks on your bicycle chain, but not in bearings. There is a reason you have very different weight greases and oils for different applications factoring pressure loads, stiction and viscous friction, contamination, temperature, speed and more. Ie the oil in the differential of truck is very different to that you find in an rc bearing or a mechanical watch. And it is a different lubricant that is best for a bicycle chain than an engine...Umm, rather.....obviously.....
You for can of course use motor oil, but the experience sure wont be like using a proven top bicycle chain lubricant which will not only be a lot cleaner and save on maintenance cleaning time and cost, but also a lot of wear. Needing to clean = contamination. contamination = abrasive wear.
Runawaytrain - not everything is a scam. somethings are logical, such as the right tool for the job. You havent learned really anything on this front if you are still at motor oil and task specific products are a scam. I dont think you will find anything here other than risking your bliss derived from ignorance :)
@@zerofrictioncycling992 My frustration wasn't directed at YOU in particular, ZFC. Overall I think you do great work, I just like to keep it simple. Sure, I think wax is superior, and that includes the few wax-based lubes and whatnot that you recommend..
The fairly new wax notion of course came from the Motorcycle industry.
My personal input comes simply from my many years riding, and almost NO bicycle rider 20/30 years ago has ever complained much about bike chain ''wear", etc. That being said, I like your work, I think you're useful to the industry, and the attack wasn't in your direction, but to the bike lube industry itself.
I've lost to how many bike chain lubes are out there. Too damn many. I'm sure you would meet me at least half-way on that one, yes? It's a madhouse out there. Keeping it simple works for me. That's it. Cheers.
@@runawaytrain9794 I think that ones personal anecdotal experience can sometimes be misleading - ie if you have never heard a cyclist complaining about wear etc. 20 or 30 years ago, cassettes, chains and chain rings sure didnt cost what the top tier stuff does now. We have cassettes that can cost 700 bucks to 1000 bucks for top tier. Chain rings can run up to $1500, and chains up to $250.
The lower performing bicycle chain lubricants (which motor oil might beat...) absolutely rip through these parts - ESPECIALLY for gravel and mtb riders. Where as the top tested products save a huge amount of wear. And they stay a lot cleaner and less abrasive for a LOT longer = less maintenance. And so even if some of them comparatively cost a lot more vs say motor oil - they only need to say halve the wear rate - which would be an easy challenge for them, and in total cost to run per 10,000km cycling they are just miles ahead.
We are here to save as many drivetrains as possible from an early death by abrasion, as well as less chemicals needing to be used for maintenance, and simply the top products achieve that very well, the not so good products just cost on every front.
However - for sure depending on what you had seen - ie i would choose motor oil vs using muc off's wet lubricants or finish line wet that is for sure! If that has been ones exposure then i would go far out this bicycle chain lube stuff is just a rip off, motor oil is probably better and its 1% the price. However vs the actual best products - that really have had a lot of R&D and testing for this actual use case (vs possible just being re bottled X from industry with some scents added to it....) - it really would be no contest, and it really does save people a lot of wear and money and maintenance.
@@zerofrictioncycling992 Anecdotes in general can mislead sometimes, yes. Great points on individual component prices nowdays too. Not cheap. Motor Oils themselves have also improved over the years BTW. I've used Royal Purple High Mileage Motor Oil for my chain, and whether it's "hype" or not, it claims it's "Formulated With Robust Zinc/Phosphorus Anti-Wear Compounds Combined With Royal Purple's Proprietary Additive Technology", etc. I'm not averse to wax one day, and not to brag, but I'm not hurting financially for new parts just in case. I own a used Kestrel 200 SCI road bike (Japanese-made, excellent condition), and knock on wood, so far so good with that oil. I see there's ONE place which sells pre-waxed chains online...I guess that's a million dollar idea for those who don't want to go through the B.S. with all the equipment you need to do the job. It's alot of work. Another million dollar idea would someone to come up with a much, MUCH easier method to wax them. Wishful thinking maybe lol. Thx for your input.
1000 miles only, now require new dura ace chainrings, new chain and new cassette. Thanks suck off dynamic.
Grinding paste at best.
Waiting for the silca hot wax kit to turn up, never using drip oil again.
You're freewheeling is good don't worry
I'm pretty f'd off my brand new cassette is now gunky black and it won't come off no matter what I do thanks muc off 😤
First of all, would this mean that muc-off is beneficial to people running hub style gears like rohloff? Secondly wouldn't the full tension be only limited to a completely new cog and chain combo? I would argue that even an only slightly worn combo has already more slack on the return than any spring tensioned derailleur will ever have. Furthermore force and torque for human pedalling is not constant. Switching between machines is also less ideal as bedding in will have more influence than the lubricant in question. Btw equipment North of 10*K $ is peanuts in industry and research. There are loads of labs with 200k worth of equipment and not a single soul knowing how to operate it.
Hi Bart - Firstly no. Maybe it wont be as terrible in a sealed system, but why not run something that is proven to be amazing, vs possibly less terrible. Remember part of their marketing is specifically that it conditions the chain metal - in their method by removing peaks - this takes friction - this is wear occurring. Secondly, are you talking about single speed? New chain and cog combo on derailleur set up - age of parts is not going to change what is occurring re the need for FTT and FLT testing. Talking single speed, even with correct tension in chain so the chain is under tension in top and bottom span, the top span is under VERY high load from rider load, the bottom span is under low enough load to allow reset. This has been extensively tested from Friction facts days, and the fact that to best of mine and others knowledge every hour record and many other records over the last decade on the track are on wax & powder chains.
And yes - refer to episode 11 re testing - it is embarrassing for cycling that out of the entire industry - there is zero agreement on how to test and advise friction losses in a chain. It is a basket case. So many industries can accurately test to the same standard - to extreme precision - measurements / losses far more exacting that what we need to do in this area.
Cycling doesnt have the overall need to put funds in for an independent test facility for lubricant / chain losses - to an industry wide agreed control standard, and at company level - 25k usd is a lot of money - to still also not test to any agreed standard and with results that vary wildly from one test site to another. Until we have an agreed test standard, there can't really even begin to think of a test body that will be able to conduct testing and remain solvent. The ZFC model - using wear rate correlation testing vs outright losses to avoid all the traps explained in episode 11, uses the retail side of stocking the best tested products to have a viable business model overall - without the retail side if i had to live off margins from testing, i would be living one heck of lean existence. We need a standard first, and then a facility may (MAY) be able to make money testing to that standard, and then the cycling world may have independent and accurate efficiency losses. In the interim, check out the episode on zfc testing to understand how much information about lubricant performance across a range of conditions that we can attain from the ZFC test method.
@@zerofrictioncycling992 It sort of feels like your just trying to sell your testing method to industry and their not biting. If your moving the chain between the two machines all parameters are changed. Bedding in to the chainwheel and cog is going out of the door and the bend angles of the chain between the augmented wear machine and measuring machine are very much different. Anyhow may haps industry fears the wind tunnel effect, where it was tried to standardize measurements until people realized there was little to no meaning to them in the real world unless conditions were absolutely perfect.
@@bartus9891 Hey Bart apologies for delay, didnt see the reply in inbox and then i lose track - found this looking for something else! Overall i can only state that you could not be more incorrect. The FTT / FLT methodology is not my testing, that was discovered by pioneering work of Jason Smith in the friction facts days. What i am try to sell obviously is the global adoption of THE proven test methodology. Watch episode 11 for the current train wreck state of play for cycling industry overall in this space, it is embarrassing indeed vs many other industries that have an industry standard that works.
Re the ZFC test - due to no standard for outright efficiency testing, and the fairly narrow scope / useful data from that testing (ie knowing an exact watts loss for a lubricant in a clean lab test has limited value vs what happens when the lubricant is ridden in the real world) - the ZFC test is there to fill in a lot of the gaps for what cyclists mostly need to know - Dry road condition performance, dry offroad performance , wet riding performance - cost to run modelling from these test blocks, any penetration issues, single application longevity performance etc. So a lot of really very very useful information vs hey this lubricant is 4w loss, on a perfectly prepped chain, in a clean lab, vs this other one that is 4.2w loss. Honestly, 99.99999999999% of cyclists are not going to care about that - it is of extremely little real world use.
But what my test also does is help verify or raise concern re other test labs outright efficiency results. Ie, in the case of Muc-Off test for ceramic speed where it had an increase in loss of 10w in just 4 hours, and yet in my testing there is 0.00 wear in same time - where on earth would 10w (10 watts!!!) of extra losses come from?! it cannot come from viscous friction, or stiction, such huge losses can only come from high pressure abrasive friction - which would very immediately show as wear. Hence the wear correlation testing does help verify other testing, or support concerns re other testing.
Not sure comment / concern re bedding into chainwheel / cog - this isnt an issue in my testing. It would be for outright efficiency testing.
And ha wow i am not sure re what you are meaning re trying to sell to industry and not biting? ZFC testing is booked out almost all the time, i am really the only credible and robust independent test body at the moment, which is shame. Re the FTT / FLT, this is used by others who want accurate data - such as silca for ss drip, hot melt , synergetic etc, other mfg who i cant mention have gone same path - it is absolutely agreed really that this is the proven methodology, and as we can see from the video - Muc-Off know this too they just used the FTT only for their own misleading data (in my opinion... but its pretty clear....)
Unfortunately my local bike shop only sells this stuff, and of course i bought a bottle, not knowing that it's that bad.
Luckily i came here to look it up how it does before i used it, so i can just bring it back to let it rot on their shelves. Ordered a bottle of Silca straight away.
Thank you for your honest and in-depth testing, i'm convinced it saved me from a lot of trouble and i'm sure my drive train will thank me for this!
rock n roll lube is brake cleaner with wax in it,
It all depends on what drive train you have, what weather you are riding through. Work it out for yourselves .
If its raining heavy you are going to need a wet chain ( oiled chain ) and then you will attract more road grime , clean it more.
If its dry weather , you can run a dryer waxed type lube.
Chain suck = to dry
Triple crankset - you need some oil. To avoid chain suck.
Single crank - you can keep it pretty dry.
This cleaning your chain trend is complete BS ,
Hi Giga - i would disagree with a bit of that really. Your chain does so much mechanical work under very high pressure loads, that even small amounts of abrasive contamination as part of the lubricant = greatly increased wear and cost. Keeping a chains lubricant clean is very important, simply some lubricants require very little to no maintenance, some do require frequent maintenance to remain low friction and not becoming abrasive. In that vein, wet riding - if one wants to keep chain low friction, then maintenance is needed post wet ride. One doesnt need to run a wet lubricant. Many wax lubricants have sufficient lifespan to last the days wet riding, and can be vastly easier to clean if a refined wax lube (boiling water) which is much easier than wet lubricant which will need solvent / degreaser baths = $$.
If you read the key learnings document in instructions tab - you will see it is a common incorrect myth that wax lubricants are not suitable for wet weather.
Chain suck from being too dry - yes - but far out, that is extreme. If one has left their re lube so long that chain suck is an issue, well the horse has already bolted re huge chain and component wear. This should be extremely rare and by only the most inattentive cyclists who have been able to ignore the horrible sounding and feeling chain for a long time.
So the trend re clean chain is not BS, there is just a lot of miss information about what one should use / do and when.
@@zerofrictioncycling992 Yeah , nah.
I stretch chains before any kind of other wear happens, I keep them lubricated enough to do their job.
Pressure and lubricant squishes debris, foreign material out of the contact zone. As long it's not too dirty, there's not much to worry about other than the old chain mark on the the right calf muscle, which I proudly wear .
that bike on the back is Prject ONE?
The trek supercaliber? Yes that was project one - sand colour - i didnt do it that was what the bike store owner did and i did think it looked lovely! Alas have sold that one now as i couldnt quite justify running 3 mtb's vs one mostly for training one mostly for racing. The original awesomeness plan was....
> Older mtb to be the workhorse and winter wet bike
> A magnificent unno hardtail to be forever mtb and xc race bike
> A great 120mm full suspension xc mtb to be xc marathon race bike.
The plan was going great until the hardtail frame broke. In the end the company could not replace the frame, so i used refund to buy supercaliber to takes its place. And it was ....good.... but it was a bit heavier than expected, and so didnt light and lively like the hardtail, and i couldnt ride it any faster on a xc race lap/s than the xc marathon bike - so keeping another bike mint condition for a xco race bike i just couldnt be bothered when it was no faster for me and not as much fun to ride like the hard tail was. So back to two mtb for the time being :)
@@zerofrictioncycling992 Honored to get a response. I also have a p1 that i should have put in a museum since it barely got used.... Just a beaty. Is there any bike that could live up to that expectation with full suspension? How did that supercaliber ride Downhill? Sir i had a question. Have you seen the new Sram power meter which is threaded mount and sits within the chainring. Have you tested it, or heard if it is any good? I dont get why nobody has ever reviewed it. Is it so new? it weights 750 grams with the Quarq installed and costs like 820$ What do you think?
@@ignaciosevil2157 ah my pleasure - i try to type fast and get to as many as i can! :) Honestly i struggled with it a bit. It was great uphill and flat as the strut suspension is very efficient. But even with a really schmick parts build it was still like 11kg, which is about a kg more than it should be.
Downhill - bearing in mind i am just recreational and pretty late to mtb, getting my first one at 41 years old circa 9 years ago - so my experience across different mtb's is not extensive. My old workhorse trek top fuel is groovy, but old. The hard tail was lovely - hard work on rough tracks of course, but so much fun. The new full suspension mondraker podium f rides beautifully downhill and around corners rough or smooth.
The supercal.... would just seem to get speed wobbles. I have never had a road or mtb or gravel bike get speed wobbles before. But it was i would say vs anything else if have ridden - unstable. if you were going fast ish, and it was rough, it just felt like the bars could rip out of your hands at any moment (and that did happen once causing quite a fun crash - my only crash for a couple years).
So i could go down a rocky descent near where i live on the trek and the mondraker at a good clip and feel 100% secure and in control , same descent on super cal i would be not sure if the bars were going to twist out of my hands from sudden onset head shake. Havent event had time to google if this is reported more widely for the super cal - but suffice to say, its the only bike to date i have had that was "nervous" - road or offroad.
@@ignaciosevil2157 oh and re power meter sorry not sure - havent had time to look into that at all, but on the surface that sure sounds heavy and costly!!! i would probably run a lovely light crank and get sigeyi instead, or favero's. I have gamin rally but VERY underwhelmed with those, they seem to read way low, and are a bit bulky / too high stack height. I have a sigeyi and that seems groovy as to date. I will be moving on the rally's for favero most likely... but will check out more detail on the sram one - i will be upgrading the mondraker to t-type this year so will have a look at that crank :)
@@zerofrictioncycling992 yeah it really is interesting to me if the new Threaded mount xx crank is better than the classic QUARQZ power meter. Because judging only by looks it really seems cool. I guess you would have to be Very much into XC to be aware of the especifics here.
Im undecided between getting the X0 Power meter, or the XX power meter threaded mount. It seem like the threaded is a new system that probably is very long lasting in terms of battery. Nino churter uses it on his bike. seems pretty nice. and dude wins with it so it cant be that bad i guess.
Dude were talking chain lube. Marketing driven, Disc brakes, gravel bikes, the list goes on and on. In the last 20 years theres been a ton of Kool-aid that has been dished out and drunk.
Sure. But my area of focus is to help cyclists know what products / manufacturers are delivering great products in this space - which unlike many other area's - can save or cost them a lot of money over time, more and more so a groupset components become more expensive. Thus i am here to help highlight the products / manufacturers of greatest concern re their marketing vs product performance.
If a company is to go so far as to completely fudge testing to support their product as well as tear down key competitor products - that is pretty noteworthy, and deserves to be covered in full. I feel rather passionately that there are indeed some great companies that can struggle to get traction despite great products, because they are being out resources & spent re marketing from other mfg who are taking advantage of their established position - selling crap products, with dishonest marketing. This is not good for the cyclist consumer.
If you disagree an independent body helping highlight and improve such situations - dont follow. But may i say that is strange hill to make a stand on - just blah blah blah there is marketing always has been always will be - whatever etc. If thats you, this channel is not for you - why would you watch it? I dont watch channels that arent for me.
If a manufacturer of a product test their competitors product, the inly result I would expect to be shown would be that their own was the greatest ever. My trust of those test results would be somewhere in the does not exist to total disbelief. It in addition would likely not use their product. I have not currently used any muck off products. Nor will I be using their products.
I can’t believe it’s taken me this long to see this video? I have been complaining about Muc-off for years. In my opinion the worst lube on the market. If you leave it on your chain too long it will ruin your drivetrain. 👎🏻
MucOff is terrible, that's obvious just after a few rides on their so-called "lubricants". Yet I'm not sure I fully bought into your argument. You focused a lot on the fact that their testing protocol is wrong, and that it is important to have a test rig setup with derailleur so that the lubricant could realign during the "slack" phase. But surely with UFO lube, which is a solid wax, as well as with immersion waxing, there isn't any realignment of the lubricant happening?
That is also what I've noticed in my riding now that I started waxing my chains. As the wax cannot "realign" but simply falls off, just ~30km into the ride (waxed with Silca Hot Melt) most of the wax from the inside of the rollers is gone, and the rollers can spin freely. And if I tap the chain with a finger they even rattle as if the chain would be dry. Probably there is still a microscopic layer of wax on the metal, as it is not squeaking when pedaling, but I find it hard to believe that it is able to "fill in the crevices, and keep the contamination from getting INTO the chain", and by extension, that it is able to last anywhere near 200km. I reapply after every 100km, because the chain sounds completely empty (albeit not squeaky). What would be your thoughts on that observation, Adam?
I hope I am wrong, wouldn't want to learn that I am right through ruining an XX1 groupset. :D
Overall, great content! Nice to see some actual engineering approach to the problem!
Hi German P - Firstly yes, the wax's (even solid wax's) do re set and re align - and this is proven right from the friction facts days as when run on flt like a bicycle, and FTT for the efficiency loss check - the losses remain consistently extremely low for the treatment lifespan of the wax. If just run on FTT, they quickly reach a state where losses increase rapidly - something that resets when the chain is rested for a short period. Waxes can be more prone to this that oil based wet lubricants. Why?
Even a solid wax - when rider load is introduced, as the pressure loads are so high due to small area size, an extremely thin boundary layer melts. This immediately re sets when load cycle is lifted. The wax is re set ready for next load cycle. When the high load is maintained on top and bottom span, this is not able to occur, the boundary layers are pressured off loaded surfaces until there is insufficient lubrication on that surface.
For wax chains - initially excess wax is pressed out and flakes off, but you are left with more than a microscopic layer. My xx1 chain is typically silky smooth for around 6hrs training load, then starting to sound and feel a little dry, by about 8hrs is training time it is time for me to re wax. This time will vary based on conditions of course, and so benchmark averages for cyclists around the world is pretty ballpark as different riders have different dust types (how fine, how abrasive) and different loads. But approx 6hrs minimum is a relatively average expectation.
If your chain has rattling rollers very quickly, something is not right. 90% of the time it is the prep, and the wax has not been able to bond to chain metal well. I would check vs the chain prep guide in ZFC instructions tab. 10% of the time it is a (in zfc opinion) very poor wax such as ab graphen wax which feels pretty dry and bad and tested very high wear VERY quickly.
My xx1 training chain is nearing 9000km of solid mtb training, and it is still hardly wearing, and the 11 steel cogs are also almost like new, with just the damn alloy 50t showing wear despite barely using it (i really try to stay out of the 50t as that wears so fast as it is so soft, and it is not replaceable so 50t wearing ruins 11 other magnificent tool steel cogs - it is a big waste and sram shld make them replaceable if making that cog so much softer).
So on a top wax, your chain and component lifespan should be extremely, extremely pleasing indeed, and it should feel silky smooth for a good stretch per treatment. If things were dry and rollers rattling after 30km - that is not pleasurable, no one is going to be happy running that, and wear rates would be a concern indeed. If the top waxes performed like that no way in heck would i be using, or stocking and recommending. However - due to an enormous (and i mean enormous) amount of both control and field testing - there is a reason why they are number 1 options.
So definitely check what is happening with yours as dry and rattling by 30km, that is not right, and will be wear concern. Around the world of chain prep for waxing, it is not that uncommon for prep not to be right and this sits behind the vast majority of not happy waxed life. Prep done right, then the experience is always yeehaa - just check the typical google reviews for zero friction cycling
hope that helps!
Adam
Thanks for the detailed explanation on how the wax resettles! I feel educated now!
As for single application longevity, even now it feels smooth through pedals for longer than the mentioned ~30kms (maybe for ~80 instead or 4hrs). Just when I touch and tap the lower untentioned part of the chain it rattles, similar to how a degreased chain would sound. I thought that is because of the solid nature of the wax, which doesnt have viscosity and surface tension to “stick” the roller to the inner plates. I guess before next rewax I will try to give it a few more bathes in solvents and degreasers and alcohols, and hopefully the longevity improves!
Thanks for the advice! In cycling world there is quite a tendency to extrapolate the experiences from road cycling into other disciplines, even if the environment is totally different. So hearing your experience with XX1 chains reassures me that it should work for me too! Thanks!
✅ℹ️
I just read your ludicrous AF review.🤣
Look, if someone such as yourself wants to send me a Ludicrous AF lubricant bottle -because I'm certainly not paying $90 for 50ml for that out of my own pocket- I'll gladly do a critical overview of it, and I can tell you right now that it won't be positive (mainly because of the ridiculous AF asking price). I saw one picture and it looked like a right black mess! I'll also point out the not so subtle amazing AF graphic design they have used on the bottle + packaging (in this case go faster zebra stripes) to lure unsuspecting cyclists into parting with such ludicrous AF sums of money. The best way I can think to do a video about it is to summarise your own findings.
can you comment on MucOFF claim the 11 speed chains are 36 more efficient than 12 speed. "L.O.P.S 2.0 was designed, developed, tested, and hand-built in the UK for Shimano Dura-Ace RD 9100 and Shimano Dura-Ace RD9150 11-speed rear derailleurs. Why 11-speed only? Our in-house testing found 11-speed chains to be on average 36.6% faster than 12-speed; and L.O.P.S 2.0 is all about speed!
Hey spartan bike - its possible but as you know i certainly dont place much faith in M-O test data. DA 11 is very very fast chain, typically around 3w fully optimised. So if the 12spd is 36% slower, that has it at about 4w, which is still fast. Ie sram axs flat top - ceramic speed have tested at 5.5w recently, initially in test for best chain article with cycling tips that chain was 6.7w (in same test DA came out at 3w). And DA / XTR 12 has nearly double wear lifespan of DA 11, so it is still an outstanding chain - but i will be trying to get a test number for it from CS, whose testing is actually extremely accurate, and more importantly, honest. (note, if one is using M-O lubricants, they sure would want to prioritize the extra chain wear longevity of the xtr 12 over DA 11!!!
The whole lops thing is a bit odd honestly. To me. LOPS 1.0 - i dont think that ever made it to market. Myself and others checked for years, as it has been marketed for years, and never could it be found to purchase, anywhere. Now 2.0 is out, not really anything special i dont think vs other OSPW systems that have been out for a long long time, and its 11spd only.... when the market is moving very steadily towards 12spd being the dominant (it isnt yet, but it wont be that much longer).
I think as is not unusual for M-O, lops is more an exercise / FLex in marketing vs the actual product.
You've probably heard this 1000 times but I can testify. When I first got into cycling I bought what I thought was the best, a widely available product that the cheapest... it must be the best right ? WRONG mucoff marketing suckered another person and my mtb drive train was toast after ~1000km.
I have half a bottle left if anyone wants it
Thanks Michael - honestly the more people like you that take the time to voice their real world experience i think is invaluable to helping little ZFC get the information across. M-O has huge penetration in bike stores, even those that are very mtb focussed - and wow what a combination it is for the lubricants with the highest rate of gathering contamination we have tested to be recommended for customers to take out into the world of dirt and dust. M-O are a bit of industry juggernaut - so we have a rather large task ahead to try to save a lot of drivetrains from an early death - but the job must be started. We will never make a meaningful dent into M-O sales of wrong lubricants to wrong people, i can only hope that one day i test a M-O lubricant and can report they have brought out a fantastic product, and so LBS have something excellent from M-O to sell. I am an optimist!
Goodbye Muc-Off 👋🏻