Thanks for another awesome vid Adam!!! Now we know why silca discontinued the wax x...Josh did say that if you add the speed chip to wax x, it would make the break in much easier.And I assume it would help in sub 0 temps as well but maybe not as good as in higher temps...Cheers!!!
I think Silica should have used their drip formula as a second baseline on that chart, because that should still be higher than factory grease, but lower on the chart than the wax, and it would also advertise one of their other products, but it also would give a better sense of scale to the chart
hey make sure you keep track of how many riding hours it takes before you need to reset the chain and come back to this post to report on it. (in other words I want to compare to that graph he was showing. According to that graph it should last you 24 hours of riding time, or 1,440 minutes... For me, my commute is 2×50 =100 minutes so that's about 14.4 days (2 weeks) commuting (supposing I don't go anywhere else). although if I consider the slight performance hit, and take into consideration that it's better to be in the maintenance habit of swapping/resetting chains on the same day every week versus every other week, might be better for me to stick with the original formula (10hrs/600 minutes/6days@2×50min) which would give me exactly a week with one day of leeway
I'll be most excited when Silca comes out with an EnduranceQuiet chip, that makes the chain run quiet for 500 km :) Waxing has a lot of positives, but I only get 2-3 truly quiet rides out of a freshly waxed SRAM Force chain. Then it gets moderately noisier for awhile and then much noisier until I can't stand it anymore and I have to re-wax well before I'm supposed to have to.
Yep the endurance chip MAY help, but........ honestly..... Srams flat top chains are very noisy chains, and so are much more susceptible to letting you know when wax layer is getting thin than most other chains. Best for most if thats annoying is to; > Run two chains on rotation - one for during week, one for weekend, re wax both at once - yeehaa. > Top up between re waxes with Ufo drip, silca ss drip or tru-tension tungsten all weather - you can just re wax straight over any of those three.
@@zerofrictioncycling992 I second this, I've been waxing around the 160km mark for my DuraAce chain as it does become clacky around that time. Wouldn't this theoretically create MORE longevity as you're maintaining a higher amount of wax within the chain regularly?
@@catchsmok3 yes correct, there can be BIG chain wear longevity gains again by re waxing erring on early vs pushing. if one re waxes frequently enough one can practically have an immortal chain! The chain metal just never gets a chance to come into the equation, all parts are always sliding just on a coating of wax with extremely low contamination getting through to the chain metal. Chains lasting over 25,000km to a genuine 0.5% or under have been recorded (with zfc, with msw customer base and silca customer base).
@@zerofrictioncycling992 That is very useful to know, with only like 5mins total of actually managing the chain during the wax immersion process - regular waxing is truly easier than wet/oil based lubricant. I solemnly thank you for providing all your analyses on wax lubrication! You're the reason why I've switched over!
I added an endurance chip to my wax, first impression is that chain feels stiffer and harder to break compared to just super secret so I’m assuming it will not be fun to break in in freezing conditions but im looking forward to double the ride time on a waxing
Yes i am curious if speed chip will really help re cold winter demographics, even if its shorter treatment lifespan, a hassle free break in period would be groovy for many i think
Love the cleanliness of waxing, but I need, need, need a formula that holds up better in UK year round weather conditions. I wonder if the endurance additive will help in this respect (wet/mixed conditions)?
I agree mate. I'm running molten speed wax on my commuter ATM and having to rewax biweekly. I refuse to ride in the rain, but small puddles and shady soggy sections of road have been enough to have me well below the 300km per wax I was hoping for.
@@matthewburton9637 Just watched the Silca FAQ video. It sounds like the Endurance Chip might buy us 10-15% better weather protection (as well as longer wax life). Josh Portner acknowledges that this is not enough to warrant calling it a wet weather formula. At least they acknowledge the need and have been working on a solution. I'll persevere with waxing regardless.
yep best way is to wax on weekend ready for the week, the during week just top up with something like tru-tension tungsten all weather which is a great wax drip for such riding, then re wax on weekend again to reset contamination. This keeps chain protected during the week with very little time and effort, and the re wax is the easiest way to re set chain after a hard weeks riding. Non waxers - the challenge to keep chain low friction / low wear means frequent solvent / degreaser flush cleaning, which is in no way less time, or faff, or mess + disposal.
Just use Chain L from America, it's mineral oil with high pressure stabilizers. I wouldn't even bother with wax if I wasn't riding on sandy surfaces at the moment, that stuff lasts 2000km and is whisper quiet, way quieter than wax. It will eat your components up like no other though, seems to double the chain wear rate, oh well.
@@凸Bebo凸 that doesnt sound like a great plan for many who dont want to burn through components! IM wax for most will be by far easiest - just wax to start week, top up with wax compatible drip each ride, then re wax to reset again on weekend. Some oils might survive a long wet ride ok, but what about after? They are a pain and a mess to reset frequently, and if that is not done, then grinding paste. IM wax + wax drip is easiest to reset, and therefore the easiest and cleanest to run, and therefore also lowest wear.
Hi Adam, Could you share your thoughts on Silca’s comments at the end of their FAQ video regarding the ZFC testing protocol not aligning with the Speedchip rewax frequency recommendations? According to Josh, he anticipates some wear in Block 1 due to the discrepancy between the ZFC test rewax protocol and Silca’s recommendations. In relation to that, would make sense to adjust the protocol to comply with rewax frequency recommendations? Same as done with application methods, and for all the products but not Silca only obviously. Talking in general now, while it makes sense to compare wear and speed correlation when dealing with lubricants that exhibit more than 0% wear, how can the benefits of products like Speedchip be assessed if its wear is expected to be 0% in their intended usage conditions? Given the outstanding results of the top waxes, that score pretty much 10/10 in the tests, wouldn't the Speedchip (and other future similar products) fall outside the scope of the ZFC test as it is? I'm not saying that the results wouldn't be valid, just wondering if there is any update you could do to be able to assess those kind of products even better looking forward. Even doing adjustments that could reduce the test times by any extend? Thank you very much for all your great content. Greetings from Spain. Best regards, Pablo
Hey pablo! Yes i did comment on josh's vid- that absolutely if the treatment lifespan is lower than the standard re wax intervals, then the intervals are adjusted. This has been done in the past for products where their stated lifespan is lesser than the normal intervals as they were very outright speed focused, such as UFO drip v1, Tru Tension tungsten race etc. So as long as the mfg stated lifespan is less, then there are no issues adjusting. I cant reduce the normal test intervals if the mfg claims match / exceed - ie if they claimed 400km lifespan or 600km lifespan, then i am not going to adjust to re wax every 200km. However if the stated lifespan for dry road is 200km, then test protocol is adjusted as there is no point testing a product outside of its design brief - it would be like taking a porsche 911 to a 4wd track and calling it a crap car etc. In VERY rare cases the protocol is adjusted the other way if mfg wishes to show off its very long lifespan such as black diamond drip lube where they requested it be re applied only every 1000km in clean blocks and 500km in the contamination blocks. And correct that is a limitation of the ZFC test, if speedchip shows 0% wear on adjusted intervals vs others on 0% wear at standard intervals - the zfc test cannot measure efficiency or speed between different products. It is a very blunt test in that we know notable wear is not good vs not wearing through steel parts at a good rate. However, as efficiency testing overall really is an absolute basket case, with ALL test facilities that do such testing varying rather wildly from each other - at this time it is not something i would look to try to do until there is an agreed test protocol / standard and equipment. So claims re outright efficiency i cannot confirm. but if a product is extremely low wear - then it for sure has a great validation that claims may hold up. If there is notable wear - it is difficult to have a very low friction product as it flat out takes friction to wear steel at a good rate, and so products with notable wear we can raise some concerns re claims. Products with very high wear just simply cannot be competitive. For the development test often the test is adjusted to just a single block - ie just block one if a drip lube initially to ensure no penetration issues, and if that is all good, then move straight to block 4 (wet cont. block). IM waxes samples often just go straight to block 4 as that is a harsh test block and we can see if competitive re wear or not. If a product reaches point where it has performed as hoped there, then it will go through the full main test to get a full ranking on the league table. But as it is wear correlation, it is difficult to adjust lower as a certain amount of running must be done to delineate a result, and even getting through just block 4 can take me 2 weeks. And as there are very big limitations around other test facilities (the biggest one being each client has to build their own data table testing their product vs X number of key competitors, the next biggest one being they almost always are just clean lab based and there is no contamination protocols so cant assess dry offroad, wet conditions etc) - this leaves little ZFC extremely booked trying to keep up with the big wide world of mfg's looking for testing. hope that helps!
Ever thought of using an air fryer to melt your wax? Many air fryers have a basket in them with space for oil to drip down below where the food (or chain) is. If the heating element of the air fryer doesn't burn the wax (set to 90 degrees) then this would surely be a better method than the 2 pot system. You get the benefits of the 2 pot by allowing contamination to sink to the bottom while the chain is suspended in the basket. (Obviously I'm talking about buying an air fryer just for this, not to be used for food again).
hey there - i cant see how this would be better than 2 pot system in anyway..... you are relying on getting temp so high as to melt out all the wax from inside the chain, which is difficult, it will have some level of wanting to stay on the surfaces, so the run out taking contamination with it will be poor. In 2 pot, the wax in the pot when you lift chain out and that wax runs through and out of chain - this does a vastly better job, and its very easy. I cant see that airfyer saves any time or faff benefit vs 2 pot, but for a worse result. I can see where you are thinking so its a groovy suggestion / thought to ponder and so pls dont take the above as a shooting down etc - (sometimes i worry my typing comes across too harsh! pls never worry about asking / suggesting something - just if i dont think it will be very viable in reality i have to explain thoughts / reasons :))
I am going to give hot waxing my chain a try using Silca which I have just bought. I must say I have reservations about using it. One being that I do not understand how hardened wax stays on the chain surface when in use on a bike. Having melted wax onto a cleaned chain, yes it stuck well but any forceful movement of the chain will shear the wax or remove it from it's bond to the metal. Please explain why the wax will not just fall off the chain while in use and how it lubricates the chain pins if it is just a hard layer around the pins. I am genuinely interested and will give the waxed chain a fair trial.
Hey Barry! Inside the chain where all parts are coated with wax - under the very high pressure loads (thousands of psi) - soon after riding excess will be pressed out, and just a very thin layer coating all surfaces inside chain remain. I am not a chemist, so how / why / what mechanism the wax bonds to the chain metal, i honestly cannot tell, i am just in the space of testing and reporting what products genuinely perform the best. The amount of testing and proof re immersive wax for bicycle chains is rather mountainous, and began well before i started testing with ZFC. It has been used by professionals for efficiency reasons for decades - efficiency numbers that have been proven via multiple facilities and methods. In my testing which is wear correlation based - again the top IM waxes absolutely dominate. They would not be delivering exceptionally low wear in a test that goes for thousands of kms with long intervals if there was not a lubricating layer protecting the chain metal from wear. I dont entirely know what generates gravity (we know its mass, but why). However a myriad of tests show gravity is a thing. The low friction / low wear you will get on IM wax - wax layer bonded inside your chain you shall indeed have.
@@zerofrictioncycling992FYI- I did my first few chains with Endurance chip yesterday. It seemed to be significantly less flakes shedding off when I articulated the links.
I just switched to silca hot melt wax and love it for my dusty MTB rides. I also got their drip wax and tried it on my chain after 5 rides. The hot dip seems much better, but I'm not sure how to tell when nI need to re dip or add some silca drip?
Below Freezing wax: Decathlon sells some drip on wax. This deposited between my two smallest cogs, and around 0°C it become so hard, that the chain jumped on the smallest cog until I scraped off the wax.
certain waxes unless they contain softners or are a blend with softer waxy types will indeed fracture. I personally would not use wax in the winter. The silca oil is very good for winter use, minimal dirt attraction. (Road Bike Use)
yeah drip wax performance in cold can be highly variable!! And pretty much all need to be applied to warm chain (normal circa 18c ambient temp) or when hit cold metal penetration is extremely poor.
Greetings from Finland. We have 4 to 5 months of snow and ice. I have used hot waxing for 5 years. I have made my own mix (Paraffin+ paraffin oil+ ptfe). To get it working during winter I have used some paraffin oil in the mix. I have the same mix around a year and it works well. Mostly trail/ enduro riding. Hot wax usually lasts about 300km. After that I can stretch it up to 500km by adding same, room temp, hard mixture on chain (if chain is not very dirty). Just scrubbing some particles on top of chain and using heat gun or small torch, it melts into chain. I think you could use drip wax or any wax even on the trail. Just take a lighter and use it to melt wax inside a chain.
Adam, thank you for your great content. Is it normal for Shimano chains to sound noisy once waxed? Using molton speed wax and the drivetrain is loud on large front chainring and 1-3rd cogs at the back. Chain cleaned as per your instructions.
Thanks John! And shimano can be a little like that, the siltec coating can mess with wax bond a little vs most other brands (kmc are worse re bond and noise on wax). It should improve over the next few re waxes, and / or if its a bit annoying - top up with ufo drip in between as that will add a little dampening and you can re wax straight of UFO Drip without any need to clean.
@@zerofrictioncycling992 thanks very much for the reply Adam. Good to know. I’ve got some trutension tungsten lube, is that as good as UFO? Or UFO better?
@@johnwilliams14jw the top 3 recommended wax drips to go with IM waxing all have their little pro's and cons. UFO drip is probably the longest lasting in dry conditions as you can get a heavier coating on, so this suits some - but it is more faff post application to wipe excess from cog / ring / pulley - so its a little more time to apply and if you dont wipe the excess, you will get some build up over a few applications. It also doesnt last too well in wet. SS drip is very thin, it is hard to get much on as past an early certain point, it just drips onto the floor. But it is thus quick and easy to apply, very easy to wipe excess, and stays clean for a good number of applications - just it is shorter on lifespan so re applications even in dry conditions need to be frequent (typically every couple of rides), and lifespan in wet can be very low. TTAW is like the middle ground - it is easy to apply, easy to wipe excess, longer lifespan than SS drip, not as long as UFO drip in dry conditions. Of the three - i think it has the best lifespan in wet conditions. I have been using all of the above in between waxes for a long time now as part of assessing combo approach in real world, and TT AW is the one i gravitate to now. Again UFO is a great product, just sometimes the excess wiping vs not doing all that wiping - i prefer not. SS drip is great, but cant get a very heavy coating on. TTAW rocks that middle ground beautifully.
@@zerofrictioncycling992 thank you so much for your thorough reply Adam! Greatly appreciated. I’ll stick to what I’ve got for now then. Keep up the hard work! 😁
Hey! not 100% certain what your questions means. Standard HM is a blend of waxes, speed chip and endurance chip are making a change to that wax base. Note lower viscosity = slower, high viscosity = faster (high viscosity fluids are water like, low viscosity fluids are slow moving).
More of a thought out loud, since microcrystalline is more solid compared to paraffine. They did a good thinking out of the box by looking into other wax’s characteristics. Viscosity only applies to liquid state and what I noticed is the low viscosity wax having a higher needle penetration, high viscosity having a low needle penetration spec. From that I take that high visc is already more “thick” when fluid, and when solid resulting in a more “solid” structure that is harder to penetrate during penetration test. I’m not sure if my thoughts are correct assuming a tougher wax leads to a lower wear and more durable, longer wax intervals. What you think?
@@WebShoppert I think things can get a bit all over the place with terms and descriptions pretty easily - ie what does "tougher" re wax mean to one person vs another vs a more scientifically correct description of "toughness" from a material science perspective which i dont think applies correctly here. And viscosity is also not typically discussed with IM wax as it is generally thought of as a solid lubricant - however in use viscosity does become a factor - more on that in a sec. We also dont need to worry much about penetration for a lubricant being applied as a liquid to a chain via submersive application as the chains are fair from water proof - a wax would have to be very low viscosity to present an issue, to date i have not seen concerns re IM wax penetration. The chain length of the paraffin molecules, as well as other aspects re its bonding strength to chain metal, friction modifiers etc appear to affect longevity, and its outright lubricity / efficiency at a given load and chain speed is very complicated, and involves not only high pressure friction but level of stiction, and despite being solid - viscous friction. Due to the very high pressure loads a boundary layer of wax will in a tiny fraction of a second melt and re set, but it under high load that boundary layer - no doubt its viscosity will also play a factor in outright efficiency etc. The short version is that the genuine high level players in this area like silca are doing a huge amount of testing to get the right base blend, and now modifying additives - to alter the base blend in one direction or the other, and that there is a fair bit going on with the wax overall in doing so.
Okay, so this goes back to my query about testing efficiency as well as wear protection. You said you made the assumption that lower wear equated to higher efficiency, but Silca's new offerings suggest that this is not true. I'm still unsure whether short-term (/race) efficiency is better with wax over oil on a race chain. I realise you're not set up to measure the efficiency with the accuracy needed to compare efficiencies, but it's not that difficult a set-up. I was measuring rolling resistance of various tyres at various pressures for a physics project at school using a set of Tacx rollers, a weight on a string and electronic timing. But for your set-up, adding a spider power meter to one of the rigs would allow you to measure the energy required to run one of your standard test programmes and this would give good efficiency comparisons between lubricants, but you probably wouldn't need to run it that long. I think this could present a whole new set of exciting and useful data, providing an insight into the relationship between wear resistance and efficiency and add a whole new dimension to understanding the characteristics of each chain lube. I have a suspicion that the final conclusion could be "wax for training chains, oil for racing chains". It could open a new chapter on race chain optimisation - maybe riding 300km training whilst optimised and waxed, before stripping the wax and oiling would give the fastest chain? The cost of replacing chains is insignificant in comparison to the expenditure of money, time and effort for any racing cyclist, all in the name of maximal performance to nose ahead at the finish line (even if it's an all-out sprint for the honour of taking 83rd place, that's racing! 😍). Tbh most of your viewers are probably more interested in performance than longevity, we would like this data... 🙂
Yep hopefully i can clarify, i should cover this very good question /thought train again maybe next vid. > The higher wear / faster that silca was eluding to is in relation to if in the main test the treatment lifespan was exceeded in the standard intervals. If the interval lengths remain within the speedchips treatment lifespan, then we would not see a high / higher wear rate come in because all parts are being magnificently lubricated and protected. > Whilst i have had to rely on efficiency data mostly from ceramic speed, for a very long time - all the way back to friction facts days - the best immersive waxes dominate vs oil. There are so many moving parts -8 per link every articulation, reticulation - so at 90 cadence in big chain ring it is circa 300,000+ individual incidences of friction per minute. So for outright efficiency, even relatively small differences in stiction - as every single one of those 300,000 movements goes from static to moving, as well as viscous friction - make a difference. A solid, polished wax coating on all surfaces typically has lowest stiction and basically zero viscous friction - something oils struggle to match. If fact no oil / wet lube in CS testing in nearly a decade has come that close to the top waxes tested - theirs and key competitors. > It is oh so far from simple to do efficiency testing. For outright efficiency we could have 10 lubricants in a 1 watt range from say 4w to 5w loss, and 30 ranked in from 5 to 6w loss - for lubricant / chain efficiency testing - 0.1w accuracy is the absolute minimum. A 1% accuracy smart trainer is +/- 2.5w at 250w load - so 5w variance total - which is wildly out of the park for outright efficiency testing. > Special built machines with very accurate torque sensors like CS, silca and some others - run at about 25k usd. But then, what is the protocol? we are nowhere near having on mfg test machine agreeing with another test machine re outright losses. If CS has squirt at 4.8w and muc-offs machine has it at 8.6w, and silca has it at 6.3w, and wheel energy has it at 7.2w - who do you believe? If i built a machine - unless EVERYTHING is exactly the same from power supply to motor to torque sensors to chain ring and cog size to cadence to ambient temp and humidity to test chain to test chain break in and calibration protocol to actual test protocol - i would get again another different number to everyone elses different number. So already every single efficiency test machine out there provides a different loss result to everyone elses, i would just be spending 25k and a huge amount of time i dont have to add yet another different number that then any mfg could contest if it differed to their machines number. Until there is an agreed test standard - like we see with ASTM testing - no way would i go down this path, it is an absolute mess. ' > Again taking into account that 0.1w accuracy is a minimum needed, the variance in chains is big problem for outright efficiency testing. For each test ceramic speed do, they get a new dura ace 11spd chain, give it a break in run with Factory grease, then ultrasonically clean the factory grease off and prep with high quality mineral oil. They are looking for a 6w loss result as baseline. If it is very close to that, any variance can be offset in the actual lube test result, however past a small variance allowance - it cannot be used, and they have to go to the next new chain. There can easily be circa 0.5w variance from one chain to another. In fact Friction facts used to offer that testing service to pro teams, and so after prepping them a lot of chains, would have a batch of "HOT" chains for race days, and "Cold" chains for training only. Test facilities without the resources to calibrate each test chain will have higher variances in their test result - they will be approx +/- 0.25w accuracy before even starting a test. > A number of places have tried using elec draw (volts x Amps = watts) to measure as this is much cheaper - but again - all of the above still needs to be in place re test protocol, and all such places run into feedback loop issues around temp. Motors are less efficient as they heat up, so for testing - the motor warms up, loses small amount of efficiency, increases draw to maintain same drive load, the increase draw warms the motor more, which decreases its efficiency, which increases draw - so we have seen with some test facilities this feedback loop in play, it could be done with a very big motor so lots of thermal mass, and keep intervals relatively short - but so far this path has not been done well, and some results from some places have been bonkers - with efficiency going up then down by multiple watts in short periods as they try to chase / negate this feedback loop
@@zerofrictioncycling992 fair enough, although the 1% accuracy of power meters is accuracy to a standardised watt. There wouldn't be a 1% variance between readings from the same power meter, which is basically a strain gauge or array thereof which is a pretty basic and reliable instrument. Ergo you couldn't give outright figures in watts, but you give comparisons. Using a power meter to record energy used over an extended test period would yield more distinct comparisons. For comparative data you could simply attach a strain gauge wherever is convenient and record the output over a test period, it doesn't need anything calibrated
@@adadinthelifeofacyclist alas still not quite. To test efficiency would need to PM's - I would need one at the crank / spider, and one at the cassette - such as the neo. Then difference between the two is your loss. I cant just run the motor at X power draw (volts x amps) and then take the neo power reading because so much would impact the loss result from the motors efficiency, to the gearbox, to the coupling, to the bottom bracket, the pulleys wheels, to the freehub bearings. If i had a PM on the spider, and then the neo, then we have loss variance for the Spider Pm, the neo, the bottom bracket, the pulleys and the freehub bearings. that is still a lot of variances, that would make trying to be even within 2 to 3w loss accuracy a hopeful outcome. Getting that within a 1w accuracy would be sheer luck if that occurred on any test, and over the course of the ZFC test if any area started to degrade - a) how would we know and b) to what extent? What if a freehub bearing is starting to degrade, or a pulley, or one of the pms is drifting out? Testing via any such method for outright efficiency would rightly be torn apart by any mfg or competent person in tech in cycling media / other channels etc - It would simply not be accurate, and so ranking lubricants vs each other with data that will have watts difference in variation error - it would be a whole lot of cost and time and work for a whole lot of junk data. If it was easy, and accurate - then already we would have multiple independent facilities offering such testing, and their results would largely align, be highly repeatable due to low variance etc etc. Alas the testing landscape is so so very far from this reality at the moment. Hence the for sure not perfect and for sure has clear limitations re the ZFC wear correlation testing - it is blunt, and it cannot separate products at all re efficiency if they are in a fairly broad wear % rate - but it is robust within its limitations. A very low wear rate the lubricant is protecting the chain from wear, over thousands of kms, with contamination - so much more relatable real world performance vs a clean lab test some hours long - means highly likely this lubricant will be high performing. A high wear rate is a fast wear rate of steel parts. That flat out takes friction. So from really low wear, to moderate, to high wear - we can put lubricants into some very handy broad categories from top product, to medium to avoid. We dont really worry much if one product is 12% wear in a block and another is 9% or 15%. We care if one is 12% and another is 40% and another is 80% etc.
No, even if i could add another machine, i cant add more time. The zfc test is very different to other tests in that it is thousands of km's - so every test takes a lot of machine and labour time - running 3 machines on top of everything else with zfc has me maxed out. It isnt longer term feasible to do so much testing for development, there is oh so much testing to get to outside of that which will keep me going for as long as i want to keep going. And this is still mostly a hobby business, im trying not to work too much all the time.... :)
@@better.better alas there is not the money in it to do that. There is barely the money it to pay myself a pretty low amount per hour really. And then i have to have someone often here faffing around instead of my own space in my own workshop & house. The sporadic nature of the testing really also makes having staff run testing difficult - ie get all machines going what then, come back in 2.5 hours to spend 15 mins doing the re lube, or contamination addition, or check measure and then go away for another circa 2.5 hours? or stand their watching the machines spin? Its just not a viable thing without a staff member already working onsite all day and doing that as well. Ie i have one staff on for retail side - But he does a big stock pick up each monday morning to take care of orders for the week. This means he is able to operate from his own home too, and so can fill orders and then ride, or ride and fill orders - just filling the orders and lodging is about a 15 to 20hr a week job so it suits perfectly someone semi retired to have the flexibility of working from home, as opposed to having to commute to a workplace to fill out a satchel and pack it etc. So the testing side is a little hobby business for me, from my lovely workshop at home. I only have so much room. I personally only have so much time. And it just doesnt work to have a staff member try to run the testing side, it is far to intermittent re when physical work needs to be done, but the total time of all the interventions, data, resetting machines, liaising with clients - on top of all the other bits i need to do for zfc, it just has things a little maxed out. Hence some of the testing in development it will be preferable for those mfg to do the bulk of the sample testing in house - like we see with some other mfg's.
Hi Adam, seems like you have a supply and demand issue! You need to charge much more for your testing services to reduce the demand. Good news for you 🤑
Yeah the zfc testing isnt cheap due to the high labour time involved, and i dont want to completely price out smaller mfg - as it is the larger mfg the cost is fine, it is still ouch for smaller. Everything is a balance....
yes i would like more official info re their test machine on their website for all. i will keep pressing for this as silca is a mfg that should be A+ leading by example re what they have to back product claims - something missing from 99% of mfg in the lubricant space.
I just found your website/channel. Started reading about lube testing, but gotta be honest, all that info is a bit overwhelming. 🙂 I was wondering if you (or anyone in the comment section) could give me a quick lube recommendation. I ride MTBs, mainly do longer rides on all kinds of terrain. Our climate is pretty dry in the prime riding season, it's not uncommon that I have a cloud of dust following me when I ride on a dirt road or something. I rarely ride in wet conditions. I'm on a SRAM 1x12 setup, I use cheaper steel cassettes and chainrings with an X01 chain. What's the most important to me by far is drivetrain smoothness and quietness. Drivetrain noise drives me crazy. I wouldn't mind good single application longevity, and minimal cleanup between applications would be nice. I don't mind if it's a bit messy when I need to do an full drivetrain clean. Any recommendations? I've been using Finish Line Dry for a while. It's okay but I don't think it lasts long enough, and it can be a bit noisy towards the end on longer rides. They also just changed their formula, I don't have enough time yet on the new one.
Hey Holly you are correct, things do need a tidy up and we are also trying to find time to work on a lubricant choice matrix. Firstly FL dry is a really bad choice for such riding as it really isnt dry at all, so its dust gathering is very high, and it will quickly become abrasive. Keeping such clean is pain with solvents etc. In dusty conditions Immersive waxing is number one if that is practical, and if not practical all the time, then using with a compatible wax lube is next best. With the top waxes like this, surface dust is easily wiped off with cloth and alcohol spray, or post wet rides - boiling water - and then re wax resets any deeper contamination and chain comes out looking brand new again. The rest of the drivetrain remains very clean and rarely if ever needs any cleaning. It is possible depending on power, how abrasive dust, chain line angles - Immersive waxing MAY start to sound and feel dry by the end of long rides, however this is relatively uncommon, typically an IM wax will last very well, and again is easily topped up for next ride in between waxes with silca ss drip , ufo drip all conditions, or tru tension tungsten all weather. If IM waxing off the table altogether, i would first try either UFO all conditions as that is a bit of a heavier application vs SS drip or TTAW, and so has the best chance of lasting through a long dusty ride (all need an overnight set though). UFO is easily cleaned and maintained with boiling water, cloth and alcohol etc. If UFO does not last long enough, your next best options would be either Effetto mariposa flower power - very smooth, great lubricant - the only negative is it runs visually quite black - so it can take more maintenance to keep looking clean, but it resists becoming abrasive extremely well. or next fall back would be Smoove - it is very long lasting, and if not over applied (ie too much, too often) it stays relatively clean for a good stretch, but it is a TOUGH clean when it is time to clean however. Avoid any wet lubes or lubes that claim to be dry, but are not, like FL dry, muc-off c3 dry etc. They will just quickly become a grinding paste. The good waxes simply have VASTLY superior contamination resistance, which for a part working so much completely open to all dust etc is why wax dominates for bicycle chain lubrication. Hope that helps to start! Don't stress if the next move / trial isnt the absolute one, it is normal sometimes to try a couple of the above options - and you will know if a choice / path is the one for you. If you try one of the above and its like hmm this is good but..... you can try another one when that bottle getting low etc. But if possible, the Immersive wax in combination with UFO, SS, TTAW etc - that is the best path for most if they can simply handle doing a re wax every approx 5th re lube- it is just the easiest way to always have a really low friction clean drivetrain running beautifully.
I ride same setup, 2x X01 chains, NX cassette recently on new bike. I used to use Squirt on old bike. Fine but a lot of cleaning and messy, dirty, sticky. Immersive wax now with Silca hot wax. Love how clean it is. One chain shows Only 0.08 mm wear on 1200 km of wet and mud consitions. I rewax every 50-100km. And reset with hot water after wet rides. It is overall more time consuming and a hassle maybe but I consider it part of the hobby. I keep track of all 8 hotwaxed chains on 4 bicycles (road, mtb and 2 e-bikes for commute). Hot wax makes huge difference in wear compared to Squirt. Ebike (midmotor) Shimano chains wear out (far past 0.5% until shifting issues occur) in 2500-3500km on single chain usage with Squirt. Now 2x chain rotation based on wear (not km), I’m at 5500km and chains are at 0.25% wear. Sidenote: first 2000km ebike on homebrew wax of Amazon paraffine and Wolfblood racing mix of WS2 and teflon. From my wear data I notice a stabilization from moment I started using Silca. So surely matters what type of paraffine/additive combo is used.
@@WebShoppert Thanks for the recommendations. For now I think i'm gonna skip hot waxing. I do all the work on my own (and girlfriend's) bikes in a small apartment, and honestly sometimes it's a bit too much as is. For now I ordered a bottle of Effetto Mariposa Flowerpower, we'll see how it does.
Someone should look at an anti corrosion chip for wet weather. Prevent the light rust that can occur while the chain dries on wet days. Really the only downside of immersive waxing.
Yeah i dont think such a chip would come out, it would be tricky. Wax is abraded off the outside of rollers first as they are completely exposed (and they dont even need lubricant anyway so normally doesnt matter) - and rollers will start to oxidise quickly as they are a high carbon steel for hardness. So even if there was an anti corrosion wax, it likely wouldnt help where rust occurs. Inside the chain where it matters you generally dont have any issue with wax as a) it is not easily worn off inside and b) there is much less air exposure. However waxed life and wet and preventing rust is easy. All you need to do is when get home, 10 sec wipe of chain, 10 to 20 secs to drip on compatible wax drip lube (ufo drip, ss drip, tru tension tungsten all weather) , and chain is protected and topped up until next re wax. Some wet lubes may not give you an oxidation problem if a film still coating rollers, but they sure give you an abrasive friction and wear problem instead, as well as a lot of faff and mess with degreasers or solvents to reset chain, whereas a re wax - resetting chain back to clean low friction awesomeness - thats a whole lot easier and more pleasurable. So just protect with wax drip post wet ride if not able to re wax, and yeehaa.
There is a big difference between different chains. I have 3 sets on a cycle. One is shimano 6-series (deore) and other two are shimano 8-series (xt). Only deore is having this rust issue during wet weather. Only once I had all wax stripped during 50km trail riding was after rain and clay based mud was getting into chain. Most of the links were a lot stiffer. Also all kind of noises and shifting was bad. Cleaning and waxing made chain great again. Watery clay is a real killer! Takes away any lubricant and acts as a grinding paste.
Silca answered this on their q&a video just after the product launch. And yes you can, there is a slight counteraction each time but you will end up a little faster and a little longer lasting, but for a significant cost.
I'm disappointed in you delving into the petty and stupid "fight" between R and H. They are both idiots using petty and often wrong "evidence" to support each of their arguments, and you wading in and especially taking sides makes you look bad and shows a lack of critical thinking on your part. And, you evaluate R's argument as "definitive," leads me to seriously question your judgment in this evidence evaluation space. 😢
I am sorry you feel that way nelson - but if i may try to help you understand from my perspective; > It is exceedingly obvious why walking out bearings from a hub shell is bad vs using bearing puller > H defence of that is nonsensical, and he makes up shite like all the mfg recommending hammer etc. > R explaining and tearing all that down was done very well. > This situation is a great example of what H can be like, especially when he is obviously in the wrong, and so is a great one to warm up re the upcoming saga between my situation and H. Pls tell me how my agreeing with the obviously correct party shows a lack of critical thinking on my part, that is quite confusing for me at the moment, and i cant improve what i cant understand. if it is not definitive to you re use of bearing puller vs walking bearings out of a hub shell, i am sorry but first you are going to need to revisit thyself first before casting critical thinking critiques my way. This one is not a difficult one, which is what makes it exceptional that an "engineer" is arguing back on it. Anyone doing a bike mechanic tafe course would have this understanding nailed in first demonstration.
@zerofrictioncycling992 In short(ish), both parties are getting increased revenue from increased views due to this annoying and surprisingly petty and ego driven spat. Both R and H have legitimate points and then go on to overstate their cases to the point they are both wrong. If I can make myself sit down and go through all this again, I'll try and lay out the details of my points in the next few days. Ugh. H is an ass, but I would hope that you getting caught up in his nastiness would not lead you to further feed the attention they are getting from this, or allow it to color your judgment on best practices. And yes, there are absolutely times when driving out bearings with a hammer is better than trying to use a puller, AND visa versa. Most recently, R is now claiming one should never press steel bearings into aluminum. I wonder what hubs he's running.
@zerofrictioncycling992 By the way, I deeply appreciate all you have done for our industry in developing a robust testing system to bring truth and understanding to drivetrains and lubricants. It has been, and continues to be revolutionary. Thankyou!
@@NelsonSherry ooh i havent seen that bit from R (honestly he seems a little odd to me on some things, like disc brakes, electronic gears, tubeless, and government conspiracies) - but what other bearings would he put into an aluminium shell - he will have a tough time finding aluminium bearings!!! The cases for using a hammer to walk bearing out is extremely limited vs either a puller or press or some hubs - their own axle where you do use a hammer. H uses hammer and punch as general practice. People following that can easily walk bearing out on too high an angle and damage the shell. It is just simply a strange hill to fight someone on, when for i would say a solid 99%+ time - a hammer and punch is most definitely not the right way vs puller or press or the hubs axle. Re me - it all started with the steel being superior re longevity vs hybrid ceramic, and my looking for more information on his 10,000km bearing test, where after only 500km the ceramic bearing races are "damaged" from the much harder ceramic balls, and are now higher friction that quality steel. I will save all the fun details for now, lets just say that since simply questioning that, and then covering why this is incorrect - i have been on H shitlist, and am apparently soon due for a roasting where he will make up who knows what. He has already put comments on vids saying i claim to be able to measure efficiency directly using power loss etc - something i have never ever ever done, and in fact have covered a lot why this cannot be done, why efficiency loss testing is currently a basket case, and thus the reason for wear correlation testing, as well as the strengths plus clear limitations of wear correlation testing. So i cant wait to see what he makes up about me and zfc circa durian rider style, but get ready. Suffice to say, he doesnt seem to worry about facts getting in the way of things - and this little situation with R is just a nice pre example (but mine will be much better - just you wait :)) And i wouldnt worry too much about driving their revenue - i dont know how much they make - i dont have sponsors or promote on insta or any other such - i know from my own little channel i am currently getting about 10 to 15k views a month, and this is around $200 to $250 a month income. So just off YT adds / share of premium subscribers watching - one has to have a lot of views - most of their income wouldnt be directly YT - but from the exposure and wider sales from YT. if you arent planning to buy a H BB or a litespeed from R, then their revenue increase from a few more views wont move any needles. But yes - only if you have spare time - more information on why me / R is incorrect re using hammer and punch - as a GENERAL BEST PRACTICE - not just very edge cases - would be great to know, as wow wow wow there are lots and lots and lots of us in this space who have worked on hubs and bearings for a long time - think the likes of Dave Rome etc also in the cycling Tech space - and i can tell you how often such mechanics are grabbing a hammer and a punch for a hub vs a puller or press, and it is RARE. It is flat out bad general practice, and it is not good of H to make up stuff to justify ones use of obvious bad general practice.
@@zerofrictioncycling992 Very well put, many diy mechanics (and quite a few shops) need to get on board with NOT walking out bearings, especially those that will need routine replacement.
Aaah, more Silca 'Commercial-in-confidence' $$$ snake oil. The British term is 'brass neck'. Unless they share their formula, like Friction Facts did decades ago, we should treat it with the suspicion it deserves.
On what level does that make any sense? Who else is sharing the formula of their products they invested a lot of $$ and human capital to create? In what business demographic is this done? What would be the incentive for any business to create a good product to sell if they then had to openly divulge what they spend the money and effort to bring to existence? And that if they dont, they should be treated with deserved suspicion? And you dont even use your own term brass neck correctly. Im sorry but your noodle is not working properly, on any level. Aside from the sharing formula thinking madness, it seems clear you are already assigning anything from X company as snake oil based on......??? You are watching the wrong channel here. go back to alex jones and Qanon.
just to add further cos it blows my logic circuits how your brain is working - your own example - Friction Facts - you do remember the formula was shared AFTER he sold the UFO business to ceramic speed, because he was then going to work for them to create a new formula - which he did. And for all the years he was at ceramic speed, did they share their new UFO wax formula? or UFO drip formula? No, because that would be mental. Where is muc-off's Ludicrous AF formula? Where is Finish line dry formula that sells millions of units a month? Pick one of thousand other lubircants and mfg and show where they have released the formula for a product they invested to create and bring to market to sell to make money off that work and investment so they can you know - eat, and earn a wage for their work? What planet are you on? When you get your intergalactic passport to visit planet earth, let me know. Far out. The people that have keyboards. Unreal.
@@zerofrictioncycling992 Having a bad day?? THAT was a reaming worthy of Hambini, if not more! And it´s directed to a follower, not once but twice... Unimpressing. Rgr
That is a very strange thing to say? Sure, people/companies may try to replicate formulas or products, or they purchase the ability to use them under license, but developers don't just give it away unless it is old tech and/or they are using it to get you onboard for their next product.
Or you could just peronally wait for it to be independantly tested like much of their other products have been and see if their claims are true. Like most of their other products have been.
Sub-25 minutes? Who are you and what have you done with Adam? 😀
Adam, you’re straight up trolling with the pocket button psych out in the intro 😂
hahahahahaha - yep its normally open for me to pop things in like my ear buds, then i saw after first clip it was unbuttoned, and then fixed lol!
Thats gotta be the fastest ever wrap up of any vid i've seen on youtube 😂
Thanks for another awesome vid Adam!!! Now we know why silca discontinued the wax x...Josh did say that if you add the speed chip to wax x, it would make the break in much easier.And I assume it would help in sub 0 temps as well but maybe not as good as in higher temps...Cheers!!!
I think Silica should have used their drip formula as a second baseline on that chart, because that should still be higher than factory grease, but lower on the chart than the wax, and it would also advertise one of their other products, but it also would give a better sense of scale to the chart
Watching while waxing my first chain with Secret Blend and the new Endurance Chip. Looking forward to the waxed chain benefits.
hey make sure you keep track of how many riding hours it takes before you need to reset the chain and come back to this post to report on it.
(in other words I want to compare to that graph he was showing. According to that graph it should last you 24 hours of riding time, or 1,440 minutes...
For me, my commute is 2×50 =100 minutes so that's about 14.4 days (2 weeks) commuting (supposing I don't go anywhere else). although if I consider the slight performance hit, and take into consideration that it's better to be in the maintenance habit of swapping/resetting chains on the same day every week versus every other week, might be better for me to stick with the original formula (10hrs/600 minutes/6days@2×50min) which would give me exactly a week with one day of leeway
I think I need to give this wax thing a try ... after my Park CC-4 arrives and I check all my chains :) Thanks mate.
After years of getting greased up, my drivetrain is sooooo clean now!!!
I'll be most excited when Silca comes out with an EnduranceQuiet chip, that makes the chain run quiet for 500 km :) Waxing has a lot of positives, but I only get 2-3 truly quiet rides out of a freshly waxed SRAM Force chain. Then it gets moderately noisier for awhile and then much noisier until I can't stand it anymore and I have to re-wax well before I'm supposed to have to.
Yep the endurance chip MAY help, but........ honestly..... Srams flat top chains are very noisy chains, and so are much more susceptible to letting you know when wax layer is getting thin than most other chains.
Best for most if thats annoying is to;
> Run two chains on rotation - one for during week, one for weekend, re wax both at once - yeehaa.
> Top up between re waxes with Ufo drip, silca ss drip or tru-tension tungsten all weather - you can just re wax straight over any of those three.
@@zerofrictioncycling992 I second this, I've been waxing around the 160km mark for my DuraAce chain as it does become clacky around that time. Wouldn't this theoretically create MORE longevity as you're maintaining a higher amount of wax within the chain regularly?
@@catchsmok3 yes correct, there can be BIG chain wear longevity gains again by re waxing erring on early vs pushing. if one re waxes frequently enough one can practically have an immortal chain! The chain metal just never gets a chance to come into the equation, all parts are always sliding just on a coating of wax with extremely low contamination getting through to the chain metal. Chains lasting over 25,000km to a genuine 0.5% or under have been recorded (with zfc, with msw customer base and silca customer base).
@@zerofrictioncycling992 That is very useful to know, with only like 5mins total of actually managing the chain during the wax immersion process - regular waxing is truly easier than wet/oil based lubricant. I solemnly thank you for providing all your analyses on wax lubrication! You're the reason why I've switched over!
I added an endurance chip to my wax, first impression is that chain feels stiffer and harder to break compared to just super secret so I’m assuming it will not be fun to break in in freezing conditions but im looking forward to double the ride time on a waxing
Yes i am curious if speed chip will really help re cold winter demographics, even if its shorter treatment lifespan, a hassle free break in period would be groovy for many i think
Love the cleanliness of waxing, but I need, need, need a formula that holds up better in UK year round weather conditions.
I wonder if the endurance additive will help in this respect (wet/mixed conditions)?
I agree mate. I'm running molten speed wax on my commuter ATM and having to rewax biweekly. I refuse to ride in the rain, but small puddles and shady soggy sections of road have been enough to have me well below the 300km per wax I was hoping for.
@@matthewburton9637 Just watched the Silca FAQ video. It sounds like the Endurance Chip might buy us 10-15% better weather protection (as well as longer wax life). Josh Portner acknowledges that this is not enough to warrant calling it a wet weather formula. At least they acknowledge the need and have been working on a solution. I'll persevere with waxing regardless.
yep best way is to wax on weekend ready for the week, the during week just top up with something like tru-tension tungsten all weather which is a great wax drip for such riding, then re wax on weekend again to reset contamination. This keeps chain protected during the week with very little time and effort, and the re wax is the easiest way to re set chain after a hard weeks riding. Non waxers - the challenge to keep chain low friction / low wear means frequent solvent / degreaser flush cleaning, which is in no way less time, or faff, or mess + disposal.
Just use Chain L from America, it's mineral oil with high pressure stabilizers. I wouldn't even bother with wax if I wasn't riding on sandy surfaces at the moment, that stuff lasts 2000km and is whisper quiet, way quieter than wax. It will eat your components up like no other though, seems to double the chain wear rate, oh well.
@@凸Bebo凸 that doesnt sound like a great plan for many who dont want to burn through components! IM wax for most will be by far easiest - just wax to start week, top up with wax compatible drip each ride, then re wax to reset again on weekend. Some oils might survive a long wet ride ok, but what about after? They are a pain and a mess to reset frequently, and if that is not done, then grinding paste. IM wax + wax drip is easiest to reset, and therefore the easiest and cleanest to run, and therefore also lowest wear.
Hi Adam,
Could you share your thoughts on Silca’s comments at the end of their FAQ video regarding the ZFC testing protocol not aligning with the Speedchip rewax frequency recommendations? According to Josh, he anticipates some wear in Block 1 due to the discrepancy between the ZFC test rewax protocol and Silca’s recommendations. In relation to that, would make sense to adjust the protocol to comply with rewax frequency recommendations? Same as done with application methods, and for all the products but not Silca only obviously.
Talking in general now, while it makes sense to compare wear and speed correlation when dealing with lubricants that exhibit more than 0% wear, how can the benefits of products like Speedchip be assessed if its wear is expected to be 0% in their intended usage conditions? Given the outstanding results of the top waxes, that score pretty much 10/10 in the tests, wouldn't the Speedchip (and other future similar products) fall outside the scope of the ZFC test as it is?
I'm not saying that the results wouldn't be valid, just wondering if there is any update you could do to be able to assess those kind of products even better looking forward. Even doing adjustments that could reduce the test times by any extend?
Thank you very much for all your great content.
Greetings from Spain.
Best regards,
Pablo
Hey pablo! Yes i did comment on josh's vid- that absolutely if the treatment lifespan is lower than the standard re wax intervals, then the intervals are adjusted. This has been done in the past for products where their stated lifespan is lesser than the normal intervals as they were very outright speed focused, such as UFO drip v1, Tru Tension tungsten race etc. So as long as the mfg stated lifespan is less, then there are no issues adjusting. I cant reduce the normal test intervals if the mfg claims match / exceed - ie if they claimed 400km lifespan or 600km lifespan, then i am not going to adjust to re wax every 200km. However if the stated lifespan for dry road is 200km, then test protocol is adjusted as there is no point testing a product outside of its design brief - it would be like taking a porsche 911 to a 4wd track and calling it a crap car etc. In VERY rare cases the protocol is adjusted the other way if mfg wishes to show off its very long lifespan such as black diamond drip lube where they requested it be re applied only every 1000km in clean blocks and 500km in the contamination blocks.
And correct that is a limitation of the ZFC test, if speedchip shows 0% wear on adjusted intervals vs others on 0% wear at standard intervals - the zfc test cannot measure efficiency or speed between different products. It is a very blunt test in that we know notable wear is not good vs not wearing through steel parts at a good rate.
However, as efficiency testing overall really is an absolute basket case, with ALL test facilities that do such testing varying rather wildly from each other - at this time it is not something i would look to try to do until there is an agreed test protocol / standard and equipment.
So claims re outright efficiency i cannot confirm. but if a product is extremely low wear - then it for sure has a great validation that claims may hold up. If there is notable wear - it is difficult to have a very low friction product as it flat out takes friction to wear steel at a good rate, and so products with notable wear we can raise some concerns re claims. Products with very high wear just simply cannot be competitive.
For the development test often the test is adjusted to just a single block - ie just block one if a drip lube initially to ensure no penetration issues, and if that is all good, then move straight to block 4 (wet cont. block). IM waxes samples often just go straight to block 4 as that is a harsh test block and we can see if competitive re wear or not. If a product reaches point where it has performed as hoped there, then it will go through the full main test to get a full ranking on the league table.
But as it is wear correlation, it is difficult to adjust lower as a certain amount of running must be done to delineate a result, and even getting through just block 4 can take me 2 weeks. And as there are very big limitations around other test facilities (the biggest one being each client has to build their own data table testing their product vs X number of key competitors, the next biggest one being they almost always are just clean lab based and there is no contamination protocols so cant assess dry offroad, wet conditions etc) - this leaves little ZFC extremely booked trying to keep up with the big wide world of mfg's looking for testing.
hope that helps!
@@zerofrictioncycling992 thank you for the very detailed response. It makes total sense!
Ever thought of using an air fryer to melt your wax? Many air fryers have a basket in them with space for oil to drip down below where the food (or chain) is. If the heating element of the air fryer doesn't burn the wax (set to 90 degrees) then this would surely be a better method than the 2 pot system. You get the benefits of the 2 pot by allowing contamination to sink to the bottom while the chain is suspended in the basket. (Obviously I'm talking about buying an air fryer just for this, not to be used for food again).
hey there - i cant see how this would be better than 2 pot system in anyway..... you are relying on getting temp so high as to melt out all the wax from inside the chain, which is difficult, it will have some level of wanting to stay on the surfaces, so the run out taking contamination with it will be poor. In 2 pot, the wax in the pot when you lift chain out and that wax runs through and out of chain - this does a vastly better job, and its very easy. I cant see that airfyer saves any time or faff benefit vs 2 pot, but for a worse result.
I can see where you are thinking so its a groovy suggestion / thought to ponder and so pls dont take the above as a shooting down etc - (sometimes i worry my typing comes across too harsh! pls never worry about asking / suggesting something - just if i dont think it will be very viable in reality i have to explain thoughts / reasons :))
I am going to give hot waxing my chain a try using Silca which I have just bought. I must say I have reservations about using it. One being that I do not understand how hardened wax stays on the chain surface when in use on a bike. Having melted wax onto a cleaned chain, yes it stuck well but any forceful movement of the chain will shear the wax or remove it from it's bond to the metal. Please explain why the wax will not just fall off the chain while in use and how it lubricates the chain pins if it is just a hard layer around the pins. I am genuinely interested and will give the waxed chain a fair trial.
Hey Barry! Inside the chain where all parts are coated with wax - under the very high pressure loads (thousands of psi) - soon after riding excess will be pressed out, and just a very thin layer coating all surfaces inside chain remain. I am not a chemist, so how / why / what mechanism the wax bonds to the chain metal, i honestly cannot tell, i am just in the space of testing and reporting what products genuinely perform the best.
The amount of testing and proof re immersive wax for bicycle chains is rather mountainous, and began well before i started testing with ZFC. It has been used by professionals for efficiency reasons for decades - efficiency numbers that have been proven via multiple facilities and methods. In my testing which is wear correlation based - again the top IM waxes absolutely dominate. They would not be delivering exceptionally low wear in a test that goes for thousands of kms with long intervals if there was not a lubricating layer protecting the chain metal from wear.
I dont entirely know what generates gravity (we know its mass, but why). However a myriad of tests show gravity is a thing. The low friction / low wear you will get on IM wax - wax layer bonded inside your chain you shall indeed have.
Well done
You need to start a testing franchise 😀
It almost seems like before the speedchip, Hot Wax X very possibly the best track wax and is theoretically competitive next to only using speedchips!
One of my customers has already asked for the double speed, double endurance version. Oh boy.
Ha thats hilarious! that will be like $270 wax!!
@@zerofrictioncycling992FYI- I did my first few chains with Endurance chip yesterday. It seemed to be significantly less flakes shedding off when I articulated the links.
I just switched to silca hot melt wax and love it for my dusty MTB rides. I also got their drip wax and tried it on my chain after 5 rides. The hot dip seems much better, but I'm not sure how to tell when nI need to re dip or add some silca drip?
Time for a video or doc on how to create a test machine, so these independents can start testing their stuff. :)
Below Freezing wax: Decathlon sells some drip on wax. This deposited between my two smallest cogs, and around 0°C it become so hard, that the chain jumped on the smallest cog until I scraped off the wax.
certain waxes unless they contain softners or are a blend with softer waxy types will indeed fracture. I personally would not use wax in the winter. The silca oil is very good for winter use, minimal dirt attraction. (Road Bike Use)
@@sarahdisco-dolly1150 Squirt sells a winter wax which I guess should work around freezing.
yeah drip wax performance in cold can be highly variable!! And pretty much all need to be applied to warm chain (normal circa 18c ambient temp) or when hit cold metal penetration is extremely poor.
@@zerofrictioncycling992 maybe worth using a hair dryer/heat gun to warm the chain up when it is cold.
Greetings from Finland. We have 4 to 5 months of snow and ice. I have used hot waxing for 5 years. I have made my own mix (Paraffin+ paraffin oil+ ptfe).
To get it working during winter I have used some paraffin oil in the mix. I have the same mix around a year and it works well. Mostly trail/ enduro riding.
Hot wax usually lasts about 300km. After that I can stretch it up to 500km by adding same, room temp, hard mixture on chain (if chain is not very dirty). Just scrubbing some particles on top of chain and using heat gun or small torch, it melts into chain. I think you could use drip wax or any wax even on the trail. Just take a lighter and use it to melt wax inside a chain.
Are you going to do single application longevity testing first with the Silca modifier chips, instead of the main test first?
Yes, planning to do the S.A.L testing first, that will help guide also if i need to adjust re wax intervals in main test for speed chip.
Adam, thank you for your great content.
Is it normal for Shimano chains to sound noisy once waxed? Using molton speed wax and the drivetrain is loud on large front chainring and 1-3rd cogs at the back. Chain cleaned as per your instructions.
Thanks John! And shimano can be a little like that, the siltec coating can mess with wax bond a little vs most other brands (kmc are worse re bond and noise on wax). It should improve over the next few re waxes, and / or if its a bit annoying - top up with ufo drip in between as that will add a little dampening and you can re wax straight of UFO Drip without any need to clean.
@@zerofrictioncycling992 thanks very much for the reply Adam. Good to know. I’ve got some trutension tungsten lube, is that as good as UFO? Or UFO better?
@@johnwilliams14jw the top 3 recommended wax drips to go with IM waxing all have their little pro's and cons. UFO drip is probably the longest lasting in dry conditions as you can get a heavier coating on, so this suits some - but it is more faff post application to wipe excess from cog / ring / pulley - so its a little more time to apply and if you dont wipe the excess, you will get some build up over a few applications. It also doesnt last too well in wet. SS drip is very thin, it is hard to get much on as past an early certain point, it just drips onto the floor. But it is thus quick and easy to apply, very easy to wipe excess, and stays clean for a good number of applications - just it is shorter on lifespan so re applications even in dry conditions need to be frequent (typically every couple of rides), and lifespan in wet can be very low. TTAW is like the middle ground - it is easy to apply, easy to wipe excess, longer lifespan than SS drip, not as long as UFO drip in dry conditions. Of the three - i think it has the best lifespan in wet conditions.
I have been using all of the above in between waxes for a long time now as part of assessing combo approach in real world, and TT AW is the one i gravitate to now. Again UFO is a great product, just sometimes the excess wiping vs not doing all that wiping - i prefer not. SS drip is great, but cant get a very heavy coating on. TTAW rocks that middle ground beautifully.
@@zerofrictioncycling992 thank you so much for your thorough reply Adam! Greatly appreciated. I’ll stick to what I’ve got for now then. Keep up the hard work! 😁
Would the used base be microcrystalline wax ; speed having low viscosity ; endurance having a high viscosity spec..? Obviously with some additives.
Hey! not 100% certain what your questions means. Standard HM is a blend of waxes, speed chip and endurance chip are making a change to that wax base. Note lower viscosity = slower, high viscosity = faster (high viscosity fluids are water like, low viscosity fluids are slow moving).
More of a thought out loud, since microcrystalline is more solid compared to paraffine. They did a good thinking out of the box by looking into other wax’s characteristics. Viscosity only applies to liquid state and what I noticed is the low viscosity wax having a higher needle penetration, high viscosity having a low needle penetration spec. From that I take that high visc is already more “thick” when fluid, and when solid resulting in a more “solid” structure that is harder to penetrate during penetration test. I’m not sure if my thoughts are correct assuming a tougher wax leads to a lower wear and more durable, longer wax intervals. What you think?
@@WebShoppert I think things can get a bit all over the place with terms and descriptions pretty easily - ie what does "tougher" re wax mean to one person vs another vs a more scientifically correct description of "toughness" from a material science perspective which i dont think applies correctly here.
And viscosity is also not typically discussed with IM wax as it is generally thought of as a solid lubricant - however in use viscosity does become a factor - more on that in a sec.
We also dont need to worry much about penetration for a lubricant being applied as a liquid to a chain via submersive application as the chains are fair from water proof - a wax would have to be very low viscosity to present an issue, to date i have not seen concerns re IM wax penetration.
The chain length of the paraffin molecules, as well as other aspects re its bonding strength to chain metal, friction modifiers etc appear to affect longevity, and its outright lubricity / efficiency at a given load and chain speed is very complicated, and involves not only high pressure friction but level of stiction, and despite being solid - viscous friction. Due to the very high pressure loads a boundary layer of wax will in a tiny fraction of a second melt and re set, but it under high load that boundary layer - no doubt its viscosity will also play a factor in outright efficiency etc.
The short version is that the genuine high level players in this area like silca are doing a huge amount of testing to get the right base blend, and now modifying additives - to alter the base blend in one direction or the other, and that there is a fair bit going on with the wax overall in doing so.
Okay, so this goes back to my query about testing efficiency as well as wear protection. You said you made the assumption that lower wear equated to higher efficiency, but Silca's new offerings suggest that this is not true. I'm still unsure whether short-term (/race) efficiency is better with wax over oil on a race chain.
I realise you're not set up to measure the efficiency with the accuracy needed to compare efficiencies, but it's not that difficult a set-up. I was measuring rolling resistance of various tyres at various pressures for a physics project at school using a set of Tacx rollers, a weight on a string and electronic timing. But for your set-up, adding a spider power meter to one of the rigs would allow you to measure the energy required to run one of your standard test programmes and this would give good efficiency comparisons between lubricants, but you probably wouldn't need to run it that long.
I think this could present a whole new set of exciting and useful data, providing an insight into the relationship between wear resistance and efficiency and add a whole new dimension to understanding the characteristics of each chain lube. I have a suspicion that the final conclusion could be "wax for training chains, oil for racing chains". It could open a new chapter on race chain optimisation - maybe riding 300km training whilst optimised and waxed, before stripping the wax and oiling would give the fastest chain?
The cost of replacing chains is insignificant in comparison to the expenditure of money, time and effort for any racing cyclist, all in the name of maximal performance to nose ahead at the finish line (even if it's an all-out sprint for the honour of taking 83rd place, that's racing! 😍). Tbh most of your viewers are probably more interested in performance than longevity, we would like this data... 🙂
You make a good point but the new Silca products are about efficiency vs *wax* longevity, rather than chain longevity.
Yep hopefully i can clarify, i should cover this very good question /thought train again maybe next vid.
> The higher wear / faster that silca was eluding to is in relation to if in the main test the treatment lifespan was exceeded in the standard intervals. If the interval lengths remain within the speedchips treatment lifespan, then we would not see a high / higher wear rate come in because all parts are being magnificently lubricated and protected.
> Whilst i have had to rely on efficiency data mostly from ceramic speed, for a very long time - all the way back to friction facts days - the best immersive waxes dominate vs oil. There are so many moving parts -8 per link every articulation, reticulation - so at 90 cadence in big chain ring it is circa 300,000+ individual incidences of friction per minute. So for outright efficiency, even relatively small differences in stiction - as every single one of those 300,000 movements goes from static to moving, as well as viscous friction - make a difference. A solid, polished wax coating on all surfaces typically has lowest stiction and basically zero viscous friction - something oils struggle to match. If fact no oil / wet lube in CS testing in nearly a decade has come that close to the top waxes tested - theirs and key competitors.
> It is oh so far from simple to do efficiency testing. For outright efficiency we could have 10 lubricants in a 1 watt range from say 4w to 5w loss, and 30 ranked in from 5 to 6w loss - for lubricant / chain efficiency testing - 0.1w accuracy is the absolute minimum. A 1% accuracy smart trainer is +/- 2.5w at 250w load - so 5w variance total - which is wildly out of the park for outright efficiency testing.
> Special built machines with very accurate torque sensors like CS, silca and some others - run at about 25k usd. But then, what is the protocol? we are nowhere near having on mfg test machine agreeing with another test machine re outright losses. If CS has squirt at 4.8w and muc-offs machine has it at 8.6w, and silca has it at 6.3w, and wheel energy has it at 7.2w - who do you believe? If i built a machine - unless EVERYTHING is exactly the same from power supply to motor to torque sensors to chain ring and cog size to cadence to ambient temp and humidity to test chain to test chain break in and calibration protocol to actual test protocol - i would get again another different number to everyone elses different number. So already every single efficiency test machine out there provides a different loss result to everyone elses, i would just be spending 25k and a huge amount of time i dont have to add yet another different number that then any mfg could contest if it differed to their machines number.
Until there is an agreed test standard - like we see with ASTM testing - no way would i go down this path, it is an absolute mess. '
> Again taking into account that 0.1w accuracy is a minimum needed, the variance in chains is big problem for outright efficiency testing. For each test ceramic speed do, they get a new dura ace 11spd chain, give it a break in run with Factory grease, then ultrasonically clean the factory grease off and prep with high quality mineral oil. They are looking for a 6w loss result as baseline. If it is very close to that, any variance can be offset in the actual lube test result, however past a small variance allowance - it cannot be used, and they have to go to the next new chain. There can easily be circa 0.5w variance from one chain to another. In fact Friction facts used to offer that testing service to pro teams, and so after prepping them a lot of chains, would have a batch of "HOT" chains for race days, and "Cold" chains for training only. Test facilities without the resources to calibrate each test chain will have higher variances in their test result - they will be approx +/- 0.25w accuracy before even starting a test.
> A number of places have tried using elec draw (volts x Amps = watts) to measure as this is much cheaper - but again - all of the above still needs to be in place re test protocol, and all such places run into feedback loop issues around temp. Motors are less efficient as they heat up, so for testing - the motor warms up, loses small amount of efficiency, increases draw to maintain same drive load, the increase draw warms the motor more, which decreases its efficiency, which increases draw - so we have seen with some test facilities this feedback loop in play, it could be done with a very big motor so lots of thermal mass, and keep intervals relatively short - but so far this path has not been done well, and some results from some places have been bonkers - with efficiency going up then down by multiple watts in short periods as they try to chase / negate this feedback loop
@@zerofrictioncycling992 fair enough, although the 1% accuracy of power meters is accuracy to a standardised watt. There wouldn't be a 1% variance between readings from the same power meter, which is basically a strain gauge or array thereof which is a pretty basic and reliable instrument. Ergo you couldn't give outright figures in watts, but you give comparisons. Using a power meter to record energy used over an extended test period would yield more distinct comparisons.
For comparative data you could simply attach a strain gauge wherever is convenient and record the output over a test period, it doesn't need anything calibrated
@@adadinthelifeofacyclist alas still not quite. To test efficiency would need to PM's - I would need one at the crank / spider, and one at the cassette - such as the neo. Then difference between the two is your loss. I cant just run the motor at X power draw (volts x amps) and then take the neo power reading because so much would impact the loss result from the motors efficiency, to the gearbox, to the coupling, to the bottom bracket, the pulleys wheels, to the freehub bearings.
If i had a PM on the spider, and then the neo, then we have loss variance for the Spider Pm, the neo, the bottom bracket, the pulleys and the freehub bearings. that is still a lot of variances, that would make trying to be even within 2 to 3w loss accuracy a hopeful outcome. Getting that within a 1w accuracy would be sheer luck if that occurred on any test, and over the course of the ZFC test if any area started to degrade - a) how would we know and b) to what extent? What if a freehub bearing is starting to degrade, or a pulley, or one of the pms is drifting out?
Testing via any such method for outright efficiency would rightly be torn apart by any mfg or competent person in tech in cycling media / other channels etc - It would simply not be accurate, and so ranking lubricants vs each other with data that will have watts difference in variation error - it would be a whole lot of cost and time and work for a whole lot of junk data.
If it was easy, and accurate - then already we would have multiple independent facilities offering such testing, and their results would largely align, be highly repeatable due to low variance etc etc. Alas the testing landscape is so so very far from this reality at the moment.
Hence the for sure not perfect and for sure has clear limitations re the ZFC wear correlation testing - it is blunt, and it cannot separate products at all re efficiency if they are in a fairly broad wear % rate - but it is robust within its limitations. A very low wear rate the lubricant is protecting the chain from wear, over thousands of kms, with contamination - so much more relatable real world performance vs a clean lab test some hours long - means highly likely this lubricant will be high performing. A high wear rate is a fast wear rate of steel parts. That flat out takes friction. So from really low wear, to moderate, to high wear - we can put lubricants into some very handy broad categories from top product, to medium to avoid. We dont really worry much if one product is 12% wear in a block and another is 9% or 15%. We care if one is 12% and another is 40% and another is 80% etc.
Adam shouldn't you be trying to expand your own production capacity rather than trying to convince them to not need you at all?
No, even if i could add another machine, i cant add more time. The zfc test is very different to other tests in that it is thousands of km's - so every test takes a lot of machine and labour time - running 3 machines on top of everything else with zfc has me maxed out. It isnt longer term feasible to do so much testing for development, there is oh so much testing to get to outside of that which will keep me going for as long as i want to keep going. And this is still mostly a hobby business, im trying not to work too much all the time.... :)
@@zerofrictioncycling992 yeah but... hiring another person along with another machine is the same as adding more time.
@@better.better alas there is not the money in it to do that. There is barely the money it to pay myself a pretty low amount per hour really. And then i have to have someone often here faffing around instead of my own space in my own workshop & house. The sporadic nature of the testing really also makes having staff run testing difficult - ie get all machines going what then, come back in 2.5 hours to spend 15 mins doing the re lube, or contamination addition, or check measure and then go away for another circa 2.5 hours? or stand their watching the machines spin? Its just not a viable thing without a staff member already working onsite all day and doing that as well.
Ie i have one staff on for retail side - But he does a big stock pick up each monday morning to take care of orders for the week. This means he is able to operate from his own home too, and so can fill orders and then ride, or ride and fill orders - just filling the orders and lodging is about a 15 to 20hr a week job so it suits perfectly someone semi retired to have the flexibility of working from home, as opposed to having to commute to a workplace to fill out a satchel and pack it etc.
So the testing side is a little hobby business for me, from my lovely workshop at home. I only have so much room. I personally only have so much time. And it just doesnt work to have a staff member try to run the testing side, it is far to intermittent re when physical work needs to be done, but the total time of all the interventions, data, resetting machines, liaising with clients - on top of all the other bits i need to do for zfc, it just has things a little maxed out.
Hence some of the testing in development it will be preferable for those mfg to do the bulk of the sample testing in house - like we see with some other mfg's.
Hi Adam, seems like you have a supply and demand issue! You need to charge much more for your testing services to reduce the demand. Good news for you 🤑
Yeah the zfc testing isnt cheap due to the high labour time involved, and i dont want to completely price out smaller mfg - as it is the larger mfg the cost is fine, it is still ouch for smaller. Everything is a balance....
I wonder how Silca is measuring. Which equipment do they use? What is the error of this equipment?
yes i would like more official info re their test machine on their website for all. i will keep pressing for this as silca is a mfg that should be A+ leading by example re what they have to back product claims - something missing from 99% of mfg in the lubricant space.
I just found your website/channel. Started reading about lube testing, but gotta be honest, all that info is a bit overwhelming. 🙂 I was wondering if you (or anyone in the comment section) could give me a quick lube recommendation. I ride MTBs, mainly do longer rides on all kinds of terrain. Our climate is pretty dry in the prime riding season, it's not uncommon that I have a cloud of dust following me when I ride on a dirt road or something. I rarely ride in wet conditions. I'm on a SRAM 1x12 setup, I use cheaper steel cassettes and chainrings with an X01 chain.
What's the most important to me by far is drivetrain smoothness and quietness. Drivetrain noise drives me crazy. I wouldn't mind good single application longevity, and minimal cleanup between applications would be nice. I don't mind if it's a bit messy when I need to do an full drivetrain clean.
Any recommendations? I've been using Finish Line Dry for a while. It's okay but I don't think it lasts long enough, and it can be a bit noisy towards the end on longer rides. They also just changed their formula, I don't have enough time yet on the new one.
Hey Holly you are correct, things do need a tidy up and we are also trying to find time to work on a lubricant choice matrix.
Firstly FL dry is a really bad choice for such riding as it really isnt dry at all, so its dust gathering is very high, and it will quickly become abrasive. Keeping such clean is pain with solvents etc.
In dusty conditions Immersive waxing is number one if that is practical, and if not practical all the time, then using with a compatible wax lube is next best. With the top waxes like this, surface dust is easily wiped off with cloth and alcohol spray, or post wet rides - boiling water - and then re wax resets any deeper contamination and chain comes out looking brand new again. The rest of the drivetrain remains very clean and rarely if ever needs any cleaning.
It is possible depending on power, how abrasive dust, chain line angles - Immersive waxing MAY start to sound and feel dry by the end of long rides, however this is relatively uncommon, typically an IM wax will last very well, and again is easily topped up for next ride in between waxes with silca ss drip , ufo drip all conditions, or tru tension tungsten all weather.
If IM waxing off the table altogether, i would first try either UFO all conditions as that is a bit of a heavier application vs SS drip or TTAW, and so has the best chance of lasting through a long dusty ride (all need an overnight set though). UFO is easily cleaned and maintained with boiling water, cloth and alcohol etc.
If UFO does not last long enough, your next best options would be either Effetto mariposa flower power - very smooth, great lubricant - the only negative is it runs visually quite black - so it can take more maintenance to keep looking clean, but it resists becoming abrasive extremely well.
or next fall back would be Smoove - it is very long lasting, and if not over applied (ie too much, too often) it stays relatively clean for a good stretch, but it is a TOUGH clean when it is time to clean however.
Avoid any wet lubes or lubes that claim to be dry, but are not, like FL dry, muc-off c3 dry etc. They will just quickly become a grinding paste. The good waxes simply have VASTLY superior contamination resistance, which for a part working so much completely open to all dust etc is why wax dominates for bicycle chain lubrication.
Hope that helps to start! Don't stress if the next move / trial isnt the absolute one, it is normal sometimes to try a couple of the above options - and you will know if a choice / path is the one for you. If you try one of the above and its like hmm this is good but..... you can try another one when that bottle getting low etc. But if possible, the Immersive wax in combination with UFO, SS, TTAW etc - that is the best path for most if they can simply handle doing a re wax every approx 5th re lube- it is just the easiest way to always have a really low friction clean drivetrain running beautifully.
@@zerofrictioncycling992 Wow, thanks for the super detailed response! I'll check out all the products you mentioned, thank you!
I ride same setup, 2x X01 chains, NX cassette recently on new bike. I used to use Squirt on old bike. Fine but a lot of cleaning and messy, dirty, sticky. Immersive wax now with Silca hot wax. Love how clean it is. One chain shows Only 0.08 mm wear on 1200 km of wet and mud consitions. I rewax every 50-100km. And reset with hot water after wet rides. It is overall more time consuming and a hassle maybe but I consider it part of the hobby. I keep track of all 8 hotwaxed chains on 4 bicycles (road, mtb and 2 e-bikes for commute). Hot wax makes huge difference in wear compared to Squirt. Ebike (midmotor) Shimano chains wear out (far past 0.5% until shifting issues occur) in 2500-3500km on single chain usage with Squirt. Now 2x chain rotation based on wear (not km), I’m at 5500km and chains are at 0.25% wear.
Sidenote: first 2000km ebike on homebrew wax of Amazon paraffine and Wolfblood racing mix of WS2 and teflon. From my wear data I notice a stabilization from moment I started using Silca. So surely matters what type of paraffine/additive combo is used.
@@WebShoppert Thanks for the recommendations.
For now I think i'm gonna skip hot waxing. I do all the work on my own (and girlfriend's) bikes in a small apartment, and honestly sometimes it's a bit too much as is.
For now I ordered a bottle of Effetto Mariposa Flowerpower, we'll see how it does.
My level of anger at H hasn't subsided!!
You are going to need anger management therapy by the time you have seen the zfc / H saga hahahaha.
Please turn your auto brightness off on your camera😉
thanks mike i will try and find that setting next week :)
Someone should look at an anti corrosion chip for wet weather. Prevent the light rust that can occur while the chain dries on wet days.
Really the only downside of immersive waxing.
Yeah i dont think such a chip would come out, it would be tricky. Wax is abraded off the outside of rollers first as they are completely exposed (and they dont even need lubricant anyway so normally doesnt matter) - and rollers will start to oxidise quickly as they are a high carbon steel for hardness. So even if there was an anti corrosion wax, it likely wouldnt help where rust occurs. Inside the chain where it matters you generally dont have any issue with wax as a) it is not easily worn off inside and b) there is much less air exposure.
However waxed life and wet and preventing rust is easy. All you need to do is when get home, 10 sec wipe of chain, 10 to 20 secs to drip on compatible wax drip lube (ufo drip, ss drip, tru tension tungsten all weather) , and chain is protected and topped up until next re wax.
Some wet lubes may not give you an oxidation problem if a film still coating rollers, but they sure give you an abrasive friction and wear problem instead, as well as a lot of faff and mess with degreasers or solvents to reset chain, whereas a re wax - resetting chain back to clean low friction awesomeness - thats a whole lot easier and more pleasurable.
So just protect with wax drip post wet ride if not able to re wax, and yeehaa.
There is a big difference between different chains. I have 3 sets on a cycle. One is shimano 6-series (deore) and other two are shimano 8-series (xt). Only deore is having this rust issue during wet weather.
Only once I had all wax stripped during 50km trail riding was after rain and clay based mud was getting into chain. Most of the links were a lot stiffer. Also all kind of noises and shifting was bad.
Cleaning and waxing made chain great again.
Watery clay is a real killer! Takes away any lubricant and acts as a grinding paste.
Might sound silly question but what about 1 x endurace and 1 x speed chip in a 250g melt or are the chips mutually exclusive?
Silca answered this on their q&a video just after the product launch. And yes you can, there is a slight counteraction each time but you will end up a little faster and a little longer lasting, but for a significant cost.
@@adamcharles9090 ah thanks!
I'm disappointed in you delving into the petty and stupid "fight" between R and H. They are both idiots using petty and often wrong "evidence" to support each of their arguments, and you wading in and especially taking sides makes you look bad and shows a lack of critical thinking on your part. And, you evaluate R's argument as "definitive," leads me to seriously question your judgment in this evidence evaluation space. 😢
I am sorry you feel that way nelson - but if i may try to help you understand from my perspective;
> It is exceedingly obvious why walking out bearings from a hub shell is bad vs using bearing puller
> H defence of that is nonsensical, and he makes up shite like all the mfg recommending hammer etc.
> R explaining and tearing all that down was done very well.
> This situation is a great example of what H can be like, especially when he is obviously in the wrong, and so is a great one to warm up re the upcoming saga between my situation and H.
Pls tell me how my agreeing with the obviously correct party shows a lack of critical thinking on my part, that is quite confusing for me at the moment, and i cant improve what i cant understand.
if it is not definitive to you re use of bearing puller vs walking bearings out of a hub shell, i am sorry but first you are going to need to revisit thyself first before casting critical thinking critiques my way. This one is not a difficult one, which is what makes it exceptional that an "engineer" is arguing back on it. Anyone doing a bike mechanic tafe course would have this understanding nailed in first demonstration.
@zerofrictioncycling992 In short(ish), both parties are getting increased revenue from increased views due to this annoying and surprisingly petty and ego driven spat. Both R and H have legitimate points and then go on to overstate their cases to the point they are both wrong. If I can make myself sit down and go through all this again, I'll try and lay out the details of my points in the next few days. Ugh. H is an ass, but I would hope that you getting caught up in his nastiness would not lead you to further feed the attention they are getting from this, or allow it to color your judgment on best practices. And yes, there are absolutely times when driving out bearings with a hammer is better than trying to use a puller, AND visa versa. Most recently, R is now claiming one should never press steel bearings into aluminum. I wonder what hubs he's running.
@zerofrictioncycling992 By the way, I deeply appreciate all you have done for our industry in developing a robust testing system to bring truth and understanding to drivetrains and lubricants. It has been, and continues to be revolutionary. Thankyou!
@@NelsonSherry ooh i havent seen that bit from R (honestly he seems a little odd to me on some things, like disc brakes, electronic gears, tubeless, and government conspiracies) - but what other bearings would he put into an aluminium shell - he will have a tough time finding aluminium bearings!!!
The cases for using a hammer to walk bearing out is extremely limited vs either a puller or press or some hubs - their own axle where you do use a hammer. H uses hammer and punch as general practice. People following that can easily walk bearing out on too high an angle and damage the shell. It is just simply a strange hill to fight someone on, when for i would say a solid 99%+ time - a hammer and punch is most definitely not the right way vs puller or press or the hubs axle.
Re me - it all started with the steel being superior re longevity vs hybrid ceramic, and my looking for more information on his 10,000km bearing test, where after only 500km the ceramic bearing races are "damaged" from the much harder ceramic balls, and are now higher friction that quality steel. I will save all the fun details for now, lets just say that since simply questioning that, and then covering why this is incorrect - i have been on H shitlist, and am apparently soon due for a roasting where he will make up who knows what. He has already put comments on vids saying i claim to be able to measure efficiency directly using power loss etc - something i have never ever ever done, and in fact have covered a lot why this cannot be done, why efficiency loss testing is currently a basket case, and thus the reason for wear correlation testing, as well as the strengths plus clear limitations of wear correlation testing. So i cant wait to see what he makes up about me and zfc circa durian rider style, but get ready. Suffice to say, he doesnt seem to worry about facts getting in the way of things - and this little situation with R is just a nice pre example (but mine will be much better - just you wait :))
And i wouldnt worry too much about driving their revenue - i dont know how much they make - i dont have sponsors or promote on insta or any other such - i know from my own little channel i am currently getting about 10 to 15k views a month, and this is around $200 to $250 a month income. So just off YT adds / share of premium subscribers watching - one has to have a lot of views - most of their income wouldnt be directly YT - but from the exposure and wider sales from YT. if you arent planning to buy a H BB or a litespeed from R, then their revenue increase from a few more views wont move any needles.
But yes - only if you have spare time - more information on why me / R is incorrect re using hammer and punch - as a GENERAL BEST PRACTICE - not just very edge cases - would be great to know, as wow wow wow there are lots and lots and lots of us in this space who have worked on hubs and bearings for a long time - think the likes of Dave Rome etc also in the cycling Tech space - and i can tell you how often such mechanics are grabbing a hammer and a punch for a hub vs a puller or press, and it is RARE. It is flat out bad general practice, and it is not good of H to make up stuff to justify ones use of obvious bad general practice.
@@zerofrictioncycling992 Very well put, many diy mechanics (and quite a few shops) need to get on board with NOT walking out bearings, especially those that will need routine replacement.
Too much bokeh!
yeah sorry thats nvidea broadcast...
Still too long of a video just to say what Silca said in 5 minutes. Lmao
thats me! Dont watch me if you dont like my expanded takes in to different aspects of X topic. Do your own 5 min vid :)
Aaah, more Silca 'Commercial-in-confidence' $$$ snake oil. The British term is 'brass neck'. Unless they share their formula, like Friction Facts did decades ago, we should treat it with the suspicion it deserves.
On what level does that make any sense? Who else is sharing the formula of their products they invested a lot of $$ and human capital to create? In what business demographic is this done? What would be the incentive for any business to create a good product to sell if they then had to openly divulge what they spend the money and effort to bring to existence? And that if they dont, they should be treated with deserved suspicion?
And you dont even use your own term brass neck correctly.
Im sorry but your noodle is not working properly, on any level. Aside from the sharing formula thinking madness, it seems clear you are already assigning anything from X company as snake oil based on......???
You are watching the wrong channel here. go back to alex jones and Qanon.
just to add further cos it blows my logic circuits how your brain is working - your own example - Friction Facts - you do remember the formula was shared AFTER he sold the UFO business to ceramic speed, because he was then going to work for them to create a new formula - which he did. And for all the years he was at ceramic speed, did they share their new UFO wax formula? or UFO drip formula? No, because that would be mental. Where is muc-off's Ludicrous AF formula? Where is Finish line dry formula that sells millions of units a month? Pick one of thousand other lubircants and mfg and show where they have released the formula for a product they invested to create and bring to market to sell to make money off that work and investment so they can you know - eat, and earn a wage for their work?
What planet are you on? When you get your intergalactic passport to visit planet earth, let me know.
Far out. The people that have keyboards. Unreal.
@@zerofrictioncycling992 Having a bad day?? THAT was a reaming worthy of Hambini, if not more! And it´s directed to a follower, not once but twice... Unimpressing. Rgr
That is a very strange thing to say? Sure, people/companies may try to replicate formulas or products, or they purchase the ability to use them under license, but developers don't just give it away unless it is old tech and/or they are using it to get you onboard for their next product.
Or you could just peronally wait for it to be independantly tested like much of their other products have been and see if their claims are true. Like most of their other products have been.