Former bike mechanic here. This lube is sort of an inbetween thing, between a dry lube and traditional oil based wet lubes. Reason I do use it is to minimize maintenance. I get more life out of it then using a dry lube in mixed conditions (which usually don't hold up the weather here) and a bit less then with a wet lube. But it geatly reduces the everyday maintenance that comes with oily lubes, regular cleaning/degreasing etc. Since I'm using the same bike for training, endurance riding and everyday mobility, both re-applying dry lube or degreasing a gunked up chain after every bit of rain is just not feasable. Maybe it's just the typical mechanic's attitude, but we tend to care less for optimal performance if we can trade some for greater maintenance ease outside of competetive racing.
Hey vien! yes i think that is a good summary perhaps of why some use. However, from ZFC perspective, the above would have been a competitive product 20 to 30 years ago, but it really just does not stack up against best products found. Maybe it is perceived as easy maintenance, and this can be so especially if one has tried some other products - but not had a great experience - ie i know many have tried say squirt as a wax lube but found it gunky and then a tough clean etc. However to me what is not really accurate for this product is its claim of being a "Dry" lubricant. No "dry" lubricant has an "oily phase". You are correct some dry lubricants do have a pretty short lifespan, which is why some prefer a wet lubricant. But others have a perfectly useable lifespan (again there are some SHOCKER older tech dry lubes that go about 40km...), and even if on the slightly shorter side, re applying every circa 200km they offset this with a) being much cleaner b) being MUCH MUCH lower wear by not becoming abrasive and c) it is still often easier to just quickly re apply a lubricant a bit more often vs doing solvent flush clean maintenance. FL dry was not dry, and so gathered contamination pretty readily. If you have been happy with FL dry performance, you really would be doing cartwheels i think with any of the drip lubricants in the top 10. And if the wax base options not suitable - then a top wet lubricant like silca synergetic or rex black diamond that will deliver a Fraction of the wear rate, and due to be able to provide brilliant performance for a very small application amount - will stay cleaner than FL dry for longer unless over applied - and thus are also an easy flush clean. So for products like that - for a mechanics perspective - you are not giving yourself a greater maintenance trade off, you are giving yourself a lesser maintenance trade off, for a product that has a much longer treatment lifespan from a much smaller application, and MUCH lower wear rate. Yes they cost more - but - a small bottle will likely last longer than 3 or 4 bottles of FL dry due to a) smaller application amount and b) much longer lasting per application. then factory in your chain, cassette and chain rings costing a total of some hundreds or more to replace, lasting multiple times longer.... it is a big cost saving overall, for the better performance AND lower maintenance. Things really have moved forward re the best known products tested to date vs products that were competitive in 1990. Honestly, A LOT of mechanics need to update. I can tell in my wifes work in medical, the X ray machines used in 1990 are nothing like what we have today, comparatively the films from 1990 look like they were taken with a potato. An elec motor from 1990 is heap of crap vs what you find in a tesla. A bike tire from 1990 does not match the rolling resistance, grip and wear life of a gp5000 or corsa speed or corsa control etc etc. Alas there is just so much shit on the market on the lubricant front that many can try a different lubricant, have meh or bad experience, and go back to what was ....less bad..... like FL dry. But if one tries a genuine top performing product, then they have a different experience indeed.
I’ve been using the finish line dry lube for years, it is really easy to clean the chain in the components and reapply compared to other products. I live in a semi arid area and it’s very dry and there’s a lot of abrasive dust during the rides, it definitely doesn’t collect a lot of dust.
I have some "finish line wet" in my "expedition bag".. just because it was a nice small bottle to take along.. never have used it, but watching this video you did remind me to check my chain and boy is it time to replace it. Luckily it's only a Eu 15,- chain (good old 9-speed)
I've used Finish Line Dry for years, re-applied frequently and replaced chains frequently. It does make your chain run great in dry conditions and doesn't gunk up your components. But you will be re-lubbing and replacing chains more often. I completely agree with your findings and have changed to waxing on all my bikes, especially mountain bikes.
One plus point with Finish Line Dry is that it drips on very thin and wicks into the rollers very well. I've used several other lubes that tend to come out of the bottle too thick to actually get to where its needed (under the rollers). Finish Line Wet is actually one of the lubes that guilty of this.
12:19 On the fact that the average of the wet-lubes is higher, because there were a few with exceptionally high rates: you could think about using the median instead of the average. That is more tolerant with respect to outliers. In this case it is something like "the mid-performing wear rate" so if you have 9 lubricants with 0% and one with 10%, the average would be 1%, but the median would be 0%. If this single product now has 100% wear rate, the average would be 10%, even though in fact it is just this one product that is very bad, while the median would still be unchanged. In my perspective it would better reflect the fact that you want to compare it to a "mid-performing product" instead of "virtually mixing all lubricants together" (I know that is not how it would perform in real life). On the other hand this is quite some statistics nerding, so I understand if you stick with the average...
So basically the median answers the question "If I pick a mid-performing lubricant, how would that perform?", vs the average which is "If I run every single lubricant one after the other on my chain, how would average result be?"
Thank you SO much for this exhaustive analysis. Im no dummy, but the data I was looking to find on chain lube was pretty much impossible to find until this video. Everywhere I looked it was the same: lube choice as a function of contaminant handling. Thats fine, but I was also interested in knowing about wear rate in the absence of contamination as I'm in a dry environment and clean my chain every other ride (i ride between 60 and 100 miles per ride). I had just ordered another bottle of Dumonde Tech Lite as it 'seemed to be working', but this video has convinced me to look at lube as another essential drivetrain component. Considering the cost over time, I can now justify the higher cost of some of the premium lubes which seemed superfluous in isolation
Hey thanks and sorry if finding difficult to know which data is the bit you are looking for - i am not sure yet of a better way to explain quickly but will keep working on it / take on any feedback. At start of the data at 11mins 21secs - the first data presented is clean block 1, no contamination - dry road conditions (actually easier than dry road conditions) - that will be the most applicable blocks data for you. And yes Dumonde tech lite i have tested but can only test the int'l formula which remains quite wet, i think this is different vs the original domestic formula but also that the original would be viewed as pretty volatile toxic stuff these days (it cant be shipped int'l so i cant test it). But at circ 15% vs top tested wet lubricants (FL dry really isnt dry....) that is many times higher wear rate vs say rex BD, silca synergetic or revolubes etc, and those lubricants need so little applied, and then a treatment lasts so long, that even though a bottle is more expensive, the net cost just factoring lubricant cost is LOWER than most much cheaper products with a higher and more frequent application. And then of course factoring in multiple times lower wear of components which is your dominant cost factor - the top tested lubricants really are worth the move. Spend $30 more for a bottle to over the next year save $300, or $800 depending on groupset - in any investment ETF thats an amazing ROI!
@@zerofrictioncycling992 With the amount of time I spend riding and the frankly insane costs involved I prefer to get as nerdy and into the weeds as possible 🙃 In addition to the video I also reviewed the data on the Zerofriction website, quite illuminating. I had always assumed that oil would provide superior wear protection to wax in a clean or near ideal environment. In addition to switching to dry and changing my lube brand (White Lightning and Finish Line were all the rage in the 90s) I'm also leaning towards immersive waxing. Again many thanks, I recommend ZFC whenever I can. Actual data is vastly superior to manufacturers claims (my chain should have negative watts how good Finish Line ceramic sounds) or deciding based on 'feel'.
Yep there is a lot of that which is why legacy brands survive. If its serviced you to your satisfaction, why change. But..... on the flip side, changing is not very difficult (simply buy a better lubricant) - and then for no more effort at all, you get much lower wear, it will likely be cleaner, and it will likely be MUCH, MUCH more environmentally friendly. So cleaner and lower wear for you, net lower cost for you even if the bottle costs more, and better for the enviro, all just for buying a different bottle vs staying with MEH because MEH has been fine. And then you are supporting mfg who have invested in making better products, vs sitting on legacy for decades (although, again, at least one good change re PTFE, but i believe they have some other not great stuff still in these older products that are literally decades old). but again, if one is happy, stay happy. My main aim is to make everyone more happy than they were :)
Thanks Glenn - i will be on the always awesome mspeedwax - i have been rotating through msw, hot melt and rex bd mostly for fun as they are all awesome (i have a pot of each of course!) , but this one its mspeedwax turn, and on a lovely ybn race chain :)
Thanks as always for the hard work. I did notice on the Website that the candle wax is in test, any idea when that data is likely to be available. As a user of MSW I'll be interested in the comparison 😊
I have half a bottle of muc-off sat in my shed. It won’t be going near my chain… so is there another use for it on my bike - derailleur pivot points perhaps? Otherwise I’ll have to dispose of it safely somehow
Honestly i have to look into pivot lubrication one day - thus far it has been an area that has eluded me a little as i havent delved into yet. So far in my life i have never lubricated a mech pivot - perhaps i dont ride enough in harsh enough conditions - but to date all my mechs have performed perfectly without lubricating pivots. my oldest road is a 10yr old, 50,000km 11spd di'2 - the shifting front and rear is like the day i bought the bike, and oldest mtb is many many many thousands of kms of mtb work and lots of mud and jet washing - and tis all grand. However if i was to start lubing pivots, it would not be with drip lubricant i dont think. I think adding something like that has a very high danger of attracting more dust and making abrasive vs helping. I think if i needed to start it would likely be a dry lube aerosol spray to ensure penetration and leave a dry film after carrier evap. Such lubes dont last too long so if had to start it might be a relatively frequent maintenance job to quickly re do - but yeah at this stage the need to re lube mech pivots has eluded me, im trying to get a mech to a point where it seems to want it! I may be missing something here however - i need to look into more. I just havent had a groupset not have perfect shifting for however long i have owned a bike thus far (unless i have bent a hanger etc from a crash, or pushing b-tension with too big a range on 1x - then i fix that - but they are not a mech not performing issue).
I couldn't read the page you were pointing to, about 5min in. I went full screen (23") and checked the resolution. It was 480p max. Did you limit it deliberately for some reason?
yes apologies i should have realised their website writing wld be very small and try to zoom the screen more. I tried recording in 4k and or HD but i think things went a bit wacky, computer crashed 7 times in the first hour of trying to record and many clips i had to re do many times as the they didnt back up before crash - the issues are getting worse each week i really need to find a spot to try and do the thermal paste and stop the overheating and crashing. Im bad enough at YT as it is and rushing even more with crashes is not helping ensure i do some basics passable enough!
If you are mixing PTFE into wax, what was the maximum effective amount? Recall you mentioning this one of your PDFs that there was some testing by Friction Facts.
it would likely vary a bit by product of course - however from the friction facts days, after a lot of testing, the original UFO wax contained 5grams ptfe. He found that adding more just gave such tiny gains it was basically a waste. this led to dry powder application after wax break in (why the ufo and ceramic speed chains are white) which was much more effective (about 0.5w) than adding more into the wax. It is why some DIY wax channels like Oz cycle are a bit infuriating as his formula is 50 grams per pound / 500g which is bonkers nuts and extremely wasteful, as well as not environmentally amazing.... For drip lubricants i dont have any data - in theory the mfg of the products should - in theory of course they would have conducted robust testing of base formula and then with X PTFE ratio's - arriving at the best ratio. Good luck getting that data from 99.999% of mfg.....
It looks like it makes a big difference which ceramic . Maybe how small it is and what is the shape of the particles. I have seen a video with different gun oils (in German) some had ceramic additives. In the Brugger Test the most didnt do better than others but one with ceramic was outstanding. The test was not measured by wear marks but by how much pressure it stops rotating. While all oils where between 2,5 and 3,5kg the one with ceramic that did better was over 10Kg!!!
The thing with ceramic and bike lubes is to date there is ZERO evidence from any of the mfg that it does anything vs the baseline product sans ceramic additivie. And i have not seen any customers chain using a ceramic lubricant that has had anything other than very average to very poor wear life vs km's. Are they adding enough to actually form a protective coating? or are they just adden a token amount so they can put ceramic on the bottle? How is the ceramic forming whilst still part of an often wet lubricant. And no matter what coating one may form, if a lubricant is wet and attracting contamination, that will still be pressed through ANY film or coating as the pressure loads are too high. but at this time i do not believe for a moment that any ceramic coating is being formed by any "ceramic" bicycle chain lubricants. I believe they are just bunging in a bit of boron nitride into the mix and then running wild with marketing claims on what they can get away with telling you that is doing. It is possible that many of them have zero idea what it is or is not doing because they have not done any control testing of the product sans BN additive and with the BN additive, if they had - that data showing the awesomeness of ceramic would be on the websites including the details of the testing. In the absence of any evidence ever - lab, control test, field test - that ceramic is helping, in the absence of detail information from the mfg re how much is being added, how this forms a coating whilst in other lubricant, how this holds up against the contamination the lubricant is gathering etc - all rather very important things one should be supplying- there really is ZERO to back ceramic, and a fair bit to point to its marketing only all the way. if there was something to it, you can bet your butt big players like silca, ceramic speed (ceramic is already in their name!) would have a ceramic wax / wax lube/ wet lube with ceramic if it worked and they could provide the testing that it worked. I have not been requested by any mfg to test a ceramic lubricant, ever. At this time if a mfg offers a ceramic lube, with NOTHING to back the claims they are making re the ceramic additive - that is telling me a lot about that manufacturer - i would move them to the bottom of the list of companies i would purchase a lubricant from. They show me the proof from robust testing re why they add ceramic and what they have to back their claims - then we can talk.
sorry eMdegee - it is set to 4k, but many weird things happened in the course of computer crashing 7 times on friday and i just had very little time to get vid done - will try and ensure back to proper resolution next vid!
Must say, your view on additive that works, but harms vs doesn't work, doesn't harm is a perfect example of Escobar's Axiom of Choice. By choosing any of two you give feedback to manufacturers as if they did something good - when in fact they have not - and pay for this illusion with your money.
We could hope that people who read the data presented by ZFC will more likely come to the conclusion that this product line is not equivalent to the better products available that do not include these additive?
@@brianmagee5847 it is not about the product though, but the whole family of ceramic or teflon infused lubricants. From any manufacturer. This is not what explicitly present in written form on ZFC website
when you do the candle wax video could you please handle the material on camera so we have an inclination on what kind of wax it actually is? so many different ones called the same name(s) is a problem, as parrafin, candle, gulf wax covers a bundle of very different materials. preferably also brand, purity and melting point if you know it. i hope it's not actual candles
watch out if you use a lot of this stuff, the solvent is very very bad for your lungs and health, i used this specific oil professionally as a mecanic for month and paid the price... no big deal if you use it sparsly, but be careful if you plan on using it in a non ventilated room
Thanks for that input - i didnt notice this but i have a large ventilated area - i didnt think this product had a volatile carrier but i will re check this based on your experience.
I believe so - im not sure yet when i can slot in a "my urine" test to see how that compares to some of the worst products tested, or if the wife will call for a white van and a straight jacket if she walks into the workshop and sees me having a wee on my test machine!
![ประสบการณ์ จ้าง Developer ที่ผมจะไม่มีวันลืม [ภาค1]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bzivN4KDg-k/mqdefault.jpg)
Former bike mechanic here. This lube is sort of an inbetween thing, between a dry lube and traditional oil based wet lubes.
Reason I do use it is to minimize maintenance. I get more life out of it then using a dry lube in mixed conditions (which usually don't hold up the weather here) and a bit less then with a wet lube. But it geatly reduces the everyday maintenance that comes with oily lubes, regular cleaning/degreasing etc.
Since I'm using the same bike for training, endurance riding and everyday mobility, both re-applying dry lube or degreasing a gunked up chain after every bit of rain is just not feasable.
Maybe it's just the typical mechanic's attitude, but we tend to care less for optimal performance if we can trade some for greater maintenance ease outside of competetive racing.
Hey vien! yes i think that is a good summary perhaps of why some use. However, from ZFC perspective, the above would have been a competitive product 20 to 30 years ago, but it really just does not stack up against best products found. Maybe it is perceived as easy maintenance, and this can be so especially if one has tried some other products - but not had a great experience - ie i know many have tried say squirt as a wax lube but found it gunky and then a tough clean etc.
However to me what is not really accurate for this product is its claim of being a "Dry" lubricant. No "dry" lubricant has an "oily phase". You are correct some dry lubricants do have a pretty short lifespan, which is why some prefer a wet lubricant. But others have a perfectly useable lifespan (again there are some SHOCKER older tech dry lubes that go about 40km...), and even if on the slightly shorter side, re applying every circa 200km they offset this with a) being much cleaner b) being MUCH MUCH lower wear by not becoming abrasive and c) it is still often easier to just quickly re apply a lubricant a bit more often vs doing solvent flush clean maintenance.
FL dry was not dry, and so gathered contamination pretty readily. If you have been happy with FL dry performance, you really would be doing cartwheels i think with any of the drip lubricants in the top 10. And if the wax base options not suitable - then a top wet lubricant like silca synergetic or rex black diamond that will deliver a Fraction of the wear rate, and due to be able to provide brilliant performance for a very small application amount - will stay cleaner than FL dry for longer unless over applied - and thus are also an easy flush clean.
So for products like that - for a mechanics perspective - you are not giving yourself a greater maintenance trade off, you are giving yourself a lesser maintenance trade off, for a product that has a much longer treatment lifespan from a much smaller application, and MUCH lower wear rate. Yes they cost more - but - a small bottle will likely last longer than 3 or 4 bottles of FL dry due to a) smaller application amount and b) much longer lasting per application. then factory in your chain, cassette and chain rings costing a total of some hundreds or more to replace, lasting multiple times longer.... it is a big cost saving overall, for the better performance AND lower maintenance.
Things really have moved forward re the best known products tested to date vs products that were competitive in 1990. Honestly, A LOT of mechanics need to update. I can tell in my wifes work in medical, the X ray machines used in 1990 are nothing like what we have today, comparatively the films from 1990 look like they were taken with a potato. An elec motor from 1990 is heap of crap vs what you find in a tesla. A bike tire from 1990 does not match the rolling resistance, grip and wear life of a gp5000 or corsa speed or corsa control etc etc.
Alas there is just so much shit on the market on the lubricant front that many can try a different lubricant, have meh or bad experience, and go back to what was ....less bad..... like FL dry. But if one tries a genuine top performing product, then they have a different experience indeed.
@@zerofrictioncycling992what about BLUB Dry Lube?
@@budikuesal7722 no idea. There are just hundreds such as that. Will need a compelling reason to look deeper!
I’ve been using the finish line dry lube for years, it is really easy to clean the chain in the components and reapply compared to other products. I live in a semi arid area and it’s very dry and there’s a lot of abrasive dust during the rides, it definitely doesn’t collect a lot of dust.
I have some "finish line wet" in my "expedition bag".. just because it was a nice small bottle to take along.. never have used it, but watching this video you did remind me to check my chain and boy is it time to replace it. Luckily it's only a Eu 15,- chain (good old 9-speed)
When you say "boy it is...", most likely you gotta swap the cassette as well
I've used Finish Line Dry for years, re-applied frequently and replaced chains frequently. It does make your chain run great in dry conditions and doesn't gunk up your components. But you will be re-lubbing and replacing chains more often. I completely agree with your findings and have changed to waxing on all my bikes, especially mountain bikes.
One plus point with Finish Line Dry is that it drips on very thin and wicks into the rollers very well. I've used several other lubes that tend to come out of the bottle too thick to actually get to where its needed (under the rollers). Finish Line Wet is actually one of the lubes that guilty of this.
12:19 On the fact that the average of the wet-lubes is higher, because there were a few with exceptionally high rates: you could think about using the median instead of the average. That is more tolerant with respect to outliers. In this case it is something like "the mid-performing wear rate" so if you have 9 lubricants with 0% and one with 10%, the average would be 1%, but the median would be 0%. If this single product now has 100% wear rate, the average would be 10%, even though in fact it is just this one product that is very bad, while the median would still be unchanged. In my perspective it would better reflect the fact that you want to compare it to a "mid-performing product" instead of "virtually mixing all lubricants together" (I know that is not how it would perform in real life). On the other hand this is quite some statistics nerding, so I understand if you stick with the average...
So basically the median answers the question "If I pick a mid-performing lubricant, how would that perform?", vs the average which is "If I run every single lubricant one after the other on my chain, how would average result be?"
Thank you SO much for this exhaustive analysis. Im no dummy, but the data I was looking to find on chain lube was pretty much impossible to find until this video. Everywhere I looked it was the same: lube choice as a function of contaminant handling. Thats fine, but I was also interested in knowing about wear rate in the absence of contamination as I'm in a dry environment and clean my chain every other ride (i ride between 60 and 100 miles per ride).
I had just ordered another bottle of Dumonde Tech Lite as it 'seemed to be working', but this video has convinced me to look at lube as another essential drivetrain component. Considering the cost over time, I can now justify the higher cost of some of the premium lubes which seemed superfluous in isolation
Hey thanks and sorry if finding difficult to know which data is the bit you are looking for - i am not sure yet of a better way to explain quickly but will keep working on it / take on any feedback. At start of the data at 11mins 21secs - the first data presented is clean block 1, no contamination - dry road conditions (actually easier than dry road conditions) - that will be the most applicable blocks data for you.
And yes Dumonde tech lite i have tested but can only test the int'l formula which remains quite wet, i think this is different vs the original domestic formula but also that the original would be viewed as pretty volatile toxic stuff these days (it cant be shipped int'l so i cant test it).
But at circ 15% vs top tested wet lubricants (FL dry really isnt dry....) that is many times higher wear rate vs say rex BD, silca synergetic or revolubes etc, and those lubricants need so little applied, and then a treatment lasts so long, that even though a bottle is more expensive, the net cost just factoring lubricant cost is LOWER than most much cheaper products with a higher and more frequent application. And then of course factoring in multiple times lower wear of components which is your dominant cost factor - the top tested lubricants really are worth the move. Spend $30 more for a bottle to over the next year save $300, or $800 depending on groupset - in any investment ETF thats an amazing ROI!
@@zerofrictioncycling992 With the amount of time I spend riding and the frankly insane costs involved I prefer to get as nerdy and into the weeds as possible 🙃 In addition to the video I also reviewed the data on the Zerofriction website, quite illuminating. I had always assumed that oil would provide superior wear protection to wax in a clean or near ideal environment. In addition to switching to dry and changing my lube brand (White Lightning and Finish Line were all the rage in the 90s) I'm also leaning towards immersive waxing.
Again many thanks, I recommend ZFC whenever I can. Actual data is vastly superior to manufacturers claims (my chain should have negative watts how good Finish Line ceramic sounds) or deciding based on 'feel'.
I have been using Finish Line dry for 10 years. Good enough for me.
I an 60YO, and I don't need "amazing". Thanks for your detailed work.
Yep there is a lot of that which is why legacy brands survive. If its serviced you to your satisfaction, why change. But..... on the flip side, changing is not very difficult (simply buy a better lubricant) - and then for no more effort at all, you get much lower wear, it will likely be cleaner, and it will likely be MUCH, MUCH more environmentally friendly. So cleaner and lower wear for you, net lower cost for you even if the bottle costs more, and better for the enviro, all just for buying a different bottle vs staying with MEH because MEH has been fine. And then you are supporting mfg who have invested in making better products, vs sitting on legacy for decades (although, again, at least one good change re PTFE, but i believe they have some other not great stuff still in these older products that are literally decades old).
but again, if one is happy, stay happy. My main aim is to make everyone more happy than they were :)
It doesn't matter what your age is
Thanks for another awesome vid Adam!!!Good luck on sunday bro!!!What lube will you be using for the race?Cheers!!!
Thanks Glenn - i will be on the always awesome mspeedwax - i have been rotating through msw, hot melt and rex bd mostly for fun as they are all awesome (i have a pot of each of course!) , but this one its mspeedwax turn, and on a lovely ybn race chain :)
Thanks as always for the hard work. I did notice on the Website that the candle wax is in test, any idea when that data is likely to be available. As a user of MSW I'll be interested in the comparison 😊
Hey bullet hopefully next week i should finish test this week and get data across from running sheet for next weeks vid
I have half a bottle of muc-off sat in my shed. It won’t be going near my chain… so is there another use for it on my bike - derailleur pivot points perhaps? Otherwise I’ll have to dispose of it safely somehow
Honestly i have to look into pivot lubrication one day - thus far it has been an area that has eluded me a little as i havent delved into yet. So far in my life i have never lubricated a mech pivot - perhaps i dont ride enough in harsh enough conditions - but to date all my mechs have performed perfectly without lubricating pivots. my oldest road is a 10yr old, 50,000km 11spd di'2 - the shifting front and rear is like the day i bought the bike, and oldest mtb is many many many thousands of kms of mtb work and lots of mud and jet washing - and tis all grand.
However if i was to start lubing pivots, it would not be with drip lubricant i dont think. I think adding something like that has a very high danger of attracting more dust and making abrasive vs helping. I think if i needed to start it would likely be a dry lube aerosol spray to ensure penetration and leave a dry film after carrier evap. Such lubes dont last too long so if had to start it might be a relatively frequent maintenance job to quickly re do - but yeah at this stage the need to re lube mech pivots has eluded me, im trying to get a mech to a point where it seems to want it! I may be missing something here however - i need to look into more. I just havent had a groupset not have perfect shifting for however long i have owned a bike thus far (unless i have bent a hanger etc from a crash, or pushing b-tension with too big a range on 1x - then i fix that - but they are not a mech not performing issue).
I couldn't read the page you were pointing to, about 5min in. I went full screen (23") and checked the resolution. It was 480p max. Did you limit it deliberately for some reason?
relevant xkcd 1187
yes apologies i should have realised their website writing wld be very small and try to zoom the screen more. I tried recording in 4k and or HD but i think things went a bit wacky, computer crashed 7 times in the first hour of trying to record and many clips i had to re do many times as the they didnt back up before crash - the issues are getting worse each week i really need to find a spot to try and do the thermal paste and stop the overheating and crashing. Im bad enough at YT as it is and rushing even more with crashes is not helping ensure i do some basics passable enough!
@@zerofrictioncycling992 Have you tried recording on a phone, if your PC crashes all the time?
If you are mixing PTFE into wax, what was the maximum effective amount? Recall you mentioning this one of your PDFs that there was some testing by Friction Facts.
it would likely vary a bit by product of course - however from the friction facts days, after a lot of testing, the original UFO wax contained 5grams ptfe. He found that adding more just gave such tiny gains it was basically a waste. this led to dry powder application after wax break in (why the ufo and ceramic speed chains are white) which was much more effective (about 0.5w) than adding more into the wax.
It is why some DIY wax channels like Oz cycle are a bit infuriating as his formula is 50 grams per pound / 500g which is bonkers nuts and extremely wasteful, as well as not environmentally amazing....
For drip lubricants i dont have any data - in theory the mfg of the products should - in theory of course they would have conducted robust testing of base formula and then with X PTFE ratio's - arriving at the best ratio. Good luck getting that data from 99.999% of mfg.....
It looks like it makes a big difference which ceramic . Maybe how small it is and what is the shape of the particles. I have seen a video with different gun oils (in German) some had ceramic additives. In the Brugger Test the most didnt do better than others but one with ceramic was outstanding. The test was not measured by wear marks but by how much pressure it stops rotating. While all oils where between 2,5 and 3,5kg the one with ceramic that did better was over 10Kg!!!
The thing with ceramic and bike lubes is to date there is ZERO evidence from any of the mfg that it does anything vs the baseline product sans ceramic additivie. And i have not seen any customers chain using a ceramic lubricant that has had anything other than very average to very poor wear life vs km's.
Are they adding enough to actually form a protective coating? or are they just adden a token amount so they can put ceramic on the bottle? How is the ceramic forming whilst still part of an often wet lubricant. And no matter what coating one may form, if a lubricant is wet and attracting contamination, that will still be pressed through ANY film or coating as the pressure loads are too high.
but at this time i do not believe for a moment that any ceramic coating is being formed by any "ceramic" bicycle chain lubricants. I believe they are just bunging in a bit of boron nitride into the mix and then running wild with marketing claims on what they can get away with telling you that is doing. It is possible that many of them have zero idea what it is or is not doing because they have not done any control testing of the product sans BN additive and with the BN additive, if they had - that data showing the awesomeness of ceramic would be on the websites including the details of the testing.
In the absence of any evidence ever - lab, control test, field test - that ceramic is helping, in the absence of detail information from the mfg re how much is being added, how this forms a coating whilst in other lubricant, how this holds up against the contamination the lubricant is gathering etc - all rather very important things one should be supplying- there really is ZERO to back ceramic, and a fair bit to point to its marketing only all the way.
if there was something to it, you can bet your butt big players like silca, ceramic speed (ceramic is already in their name!) would have a ceramic wax / wax lube/ wet lube with ceramic if it worked and they could provide the testing that it worked. I have not been requested by any mfg to test a ceramic lubricant, ever.
At this time if a mfg offers a ceramic lube, with NOTHING to back the claims they are making re the ceramic additive - that is telling me a lot about that manufacturer - i would move them to the bottom of the list of companies i would purchase a lubricant from. They show me the proof from robust testing re why they add ceramic and what they have to back their claims - then we can talk.
@@zerofrictioncycling992 My reply got delted!
why is this video in 480p resolution?
Considering the video is accessible in VP9, it is possible ZFC has encoded his video in the wrong resolution.
sorry eMdegee - it is set to 4k, but many weird things happened in the course of computer crashing 7 times on friday and i just had very little time to get vid done - will try and ensure back to proper resolution next vid!
What about Blub dry lube?
Can you mix wet lube with a thinner lube like pure parrafin oil?
you can do anything! but goodness knows what it perform like, i imagine messy
@@zerofrictioncycling992Im trying it out on my mtb. Im hearing less crunching noises.
Must say, your view on additive that works, but harms vs doesn't work, doesn't harm is a perfect example of Escobar's Axiom of Choice. By choosing any of two you give feedback to manufacturers as if they did something good - when in fact they have not - and pay for this illusion with your money.
We could hope that people who read the data presented by ZFC will more likely come to the conclusion that this product line is not equivalent to the better products available that do not include these additive?
@@brianmagee5847 it is not about the product though, but the whole family of ceramic or teflon infused lubricants. From any manufacturer. This is not what explicitly present in written form on ZFC website
ah yes true that - my apologies i was very rushed and didnt cover that well.
Haha I use this ONLY to lubricate my Bike Chain Lock (and not use it on the actual bike) - it’s great at that
when you do the candle wax video could you please handle the material on camera so we have an inclination on what kind of wax it actually is? so many different ones called the same name(s) is a problem, as parrafin, candle, gulf wax covers a bundle of very different materials. preferably also brand, purity and melting point if you know it. i hope it's not actual candles
Agree. Hoping this is a high purity bulk block paraffin wax that is generally globally available.
yes can do - will try to remember that - if i forget make sure you comment i will do on the next one, but i should remember :)
it's like water! Spilling all over and on the floor more than on the chain!
watch out if you use a lot of this stuff, the solvent is very very bad for your lungs and health, i used this specific oil professionally as a mecanic for month and paid the price...
no big deal if you use it sparsly, but be careful if you plan on using it in a non ventilated room
Thanks for that input - i didnt notice this but i have a large ventilated area - i didnt think this product had a volatile carrier but i will re check this based on your experience.
What do you mean by the statement you paid the price?
shit, have i been buying the wrong lube then? three bottles of muc-off c3 ceramic dry so far. at least it smells pretty good.....
Indeed. Adam's data indicates that none of Muc-Off's products have tested well, and most or all of them are close to the bottom.
@@prophet4320bloody hell mate. once i finish the current lube or chains, the next chains will be higher grade ones with hot melt wax then.
At least c3 is vastly better than their super lubes with a super price! I think they make their products smell nice for a reason....
Is “Not terrible” equivalent to “Better than p*ss”?
I believe so - im not sure yet when i can slot in a "my urine" test to see how that compares to some of the worst products tested, or if the wife will call for a white van and a straight jacket if she walks into the workshop and sees me having a wee on my test machine!
No wonder trek got no winnings :)
Must have been some good $$ involved in the deal i hope!!
Sorry, I lost the wil to live after 7 mins.
Earth to John Earth to Johnny can you hear me now?