Wolf Tooth WT 1 Detail Review
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 มิ.ย. 2023
- Sadly WT-1 does not match the marketing at all.
And even more sadly, the marketing claims around its ability to clean as it lubes defy all logic. Between the marketing and the product performance, this is a disappointment from Wolf Tooth - a company i have always admired the quality of their products and enjoyed using over the years. This foray into lubricants with WT-1, is in my opinion, a dent on their otherwise very good reputation. - กีฬา
I was using this for a year until I switched to immersive waxing. Thank you for amazing data, tutorials & knowledge you share.
Thank you Adam for another honest review!!! I love the sound quality and the looks of your studio...Cheers!!!
What a wonderful contribution Adam makes to the cycling community. No fluff, no bull shlt, no ridiculous marketing that we're all sick of. Praise where deseerved, criticism where deserved, all done as fairly as possible. Big thumbs up!
Hey Adam, I know this is unrelated to the video, but just wondering how long a bag of Silca wax lasts if relaxing every 300km or so?
For most road riders - re waxing at around 300km, and replace after approx 30 re waxes - most road riders will be changing to a fresh bag every approx 8000 to 10,000km. A bit sooner if do more wet riding - but overall a bag lasts many / most about a year - so with the very low wear by running top immersive wax, and component wear being the dominant cost per 10,000km, running a top option overall often saves a good bit of $$ vs previous less good options.
Hi Adam, do you have any data for Morgan Blue's Race Oil? Been using for about 12 years stays clean when cleaned and reapplied regularly, so would like to see how it does against the low friction leaders. Thanks! RC
Hey RC - no not yet - it is on my long list to try to get to when i can as it is long rumoured in many places that this lubricant is what is actually in numerous teams bottles when those teams are sponsored by rather terrible lubricants. Ie if your team is sponsored by X lube, and that lube is rubbish, having those sponsor correct bottles filled with morgan blue race oil has long been the way of the peleton, so it would be great to see how well it goes, or if indeed the peleton should start filling bottles with synergetic or black diamond instead if they have a dodgy lubricant sponsor. Overall anecdotal feedback on it seems to be in line with yours, so im hopeful there is a good chance it is an overall good option, which is not actually the case that much with a lot of legacy lubricants which are just like an atari console vs Playstation 5 etc.
The 2 lubes I am curious about are Maxima pro chain lube and SSC Tech ride it slick lube?
I think SCC tech ride slick is same product. I have been asked a bit re maxima but having a look at website to me they look the same as an easy 100 other lubricants in that category, there is nothing standing out. They may be great, meh, poor - who would know, there is nothing backing the marketing other than the same ol stuff on just about every lube / enviro claim lube. I just cant work my way through all the lubricants on the market as each test takes a lot of time and resources - i need something more - ie either really bold claims to put to test, or that a product is genuinely a contender for a great product to be identified and recommended. ZFC is heavily booked with mfg so spare spots to test a product out of ZFC curiosity are precious
Just want to send a big thank you, and keep going Dude! ( from Portugal )
I recently switched to WT1 from Rock n Roll Gold which appears to have scored much higher on your list. I Mountain bike in a dry dusty area. I like Rock n Roll gold as it keeps the chain very clean but I found that I would have to relube every ride and sometimes it didn't even last even 15 miles. Is this an application error? The WT1 lasts several rides before needing reapplication but I don't want to ruin my expensive drivetrain. Which, easy to apply lube do you recommend for very dry mountain bike rides?
Yes RNR gold is pretty old tech these days, there is a lot of carrier, and it is not the longest lasting treatment thats for sure. WT1 is much longer lasting, the main issue of course is that it is very wet, which = high contamination attraction, and a nice easy liquid pathway for that contamination to move from outside to inside where it will cause a lot of wear.
Really for offroad you should be on a wax drip - something like smoove is great option for many, it is great price point, long lasting, and IF not over applied stays pretty clean for a decent number of re lubes. Effetto flower power is the lowest wear drip lube tested, and overall it is a brilliant, it just runs a little black visually so not as clean as some -but again just wiping chain post application and post rides things stay pretty good for a good stretch.
If you must be on a wet lube even though you ride in the world of dirt and dust cos thats how you roll - then you want a lubricant that very effectively lubricates with a low application amount, and is long lasting. The top one there is silca synerg-E and rex black diamond, followed by silca synergetic and the likes of rex domestique, nix frix shun etc. Pick a wet lube in the top 5 rankings in block 2.
If you have been using wt-1 for any length of time, keep a very close and regular eye on your chain wear rate as it may be rapid.
Been using this and while the appearance of the chain was clean and ride was pretty quiet after wiping down after every ride with micro fibre cloth. My chain (12 speed rival axs) only lasted 1000 miles. Going to switch to the mariposa flower power I think
Looking at 30:20, I have to ask was that really WT-1 doing? Thats a uttermost destroyed chainring if I ever saw one, after just a few thousand kilometer thats impressive.
Is it a deliberate ploy to sell more chain rings by wearing them out faster?
no i wouldnt think that of WT, personally i think they have been sold a lot of fancy lines by SCC that there were unable to ascertain the truth of through their own field testing (perhaps they only tested against Muc-off and Finish line so thought it looked good...). However that is just my best guess at this time, and they absolutely should have been able to easily assess that it was not good - most especially offroad which is their main focus, and also the logical flaws re clean as lubricate for wet lubricants like that is pretty obvious which again - a normal cyclist reading on the bottle will not twig too, but smart people assessing such things re whether to put their good name to it should have easily seen though if sold such by scc. So it is big miss, a bit of mystery why from WT, only they can answer why this product ended up coming to market with their name on it sullying their good reputation.
The media room looks awesome! Great for a Tour de France watch party 😀👍
Have you tried any of the Morgan Blue lubes? I haven't but I am curious.
Me too. I have Morgan blue race oil on the list to try to get to as this is well known for a very long time that when a pro team has a shit lubricant sponsor - morgon blue race oil in sponsor correct bottles is usually the go to solution - so that should be tested for fun when i can - i will hope to do so this year.
@@zerofrictioncycling992 Yeh i'm only curious because they sponsor world level pro teams so you know, they are either really good or just pay very well lol.
@@JFomo Yes it will be very interesting. My guess is that it will be ok - but its pretty old, i will be surprised if it can match the best stuff that has hit the market in the last few years - it is a bit similar to an i-phone one was great back then, but its not really matching an i-phone 14 anymore. Lubricants may have moved forwards less quickly than electronic tech in that period - so that may be a too extreme comparison, but suffice to say, if you arent moving forwards, you are moving backwards, and this is an old product vs some products have genuinely had a huge amount of R&D and testing, and simply greater / updated knowledge applied to them. If it remotely matches the likes of a synergetic or revolubes or Rex black diamond i will be surprised to say the least.
Having said that, there are SO MANY very average to poor lubricant options out there, i have no doubt many teams could do a lot worse that morgan blue as well. But we shall see.... :)
Hello everybody,
If we use oil lubricant on chain road or mtb it's ok to pass the chain on a rag by back-pedaling after each ride?
Best regards.
Hi sorry for delay - still catching up post leave. - for a wet lubricant no that doesnt help a lot. you really have just as much chance of wiping contamination back into the chain as you do wiping it off. And that does nothing re how abrasive the lubricant now is deep inside the chain. Wet lubricants attract more contamination more quickly because - they are wet. And because they are wet, contamination has a path / medium to get from outside to inside chain -which is very bad. Solid / semi solid wax - whatever much smaller amount sticks to the outside has a really hard time getting inside. The biggest danger is bringing it in on re lube. So spraying a microfiber cloth with alcohol and wiping outside to lift off dust before re lube with a wax lube works well. Literally everything is against you with wet lubes and offroad, it is just a miss match of product to purpose. The wear results for the top 5 wet lubricants ever test is still almost 5x greater than the average wear rate for the top 5 wax DRIP lubricants (so not counting immersive waxes) - through dry contamination test block. Thats a lot. And that the best wet drips. The not so good ones are frankly murder. All of those are wiped with microfiber cloth to clean as best as that can, but wow that has limits....
@@zerofrictioncycling992 @zerofrictioncycling992 Hello, thanks for the reply 🙏🏻
I was using liquid wax like squirt-lube or effetto-mariposa flowerpower, it was very smooth and nice but 3 problem for me :
1)The first degreasing of a new chain in different bath is now heavy for.
2)The cost of one of the best "easy-degreaser" is close to 40€ for the bottle, the cost of one chain Shimano CN-M6100 12 speed is 18€ so it's possible to buy 2 chains for the price of 1 bottle of deagreser.
3) Doing the 1st cleaning like a maniac and taking care to remove my chain every 150km, cleaning with boiling water, drying perfectly, reapply liquid wax there's every time little ball of wax on jockey wheels and on front chainring.
The lifetime of my CN-M6100 or CN-M7100 12s chain wasn't crazy, the 0,5 teeth of chain checker say me "chain is ok to replace" after 1000/1200km on a Road-Bike and I never cross my chain, never ride on rain, I had much more lifetime km using same routine on my 11 speed chain.
For me it was a lot of work (1st degreasing) for a "poor" lifetime.
Now i am looking for something more easy to do like put my new chain on bike without removing factory grease, a drop of lubricant on each roller, backpedal 15/20 time, rest of maximum 1 hour, wipe excess with a rag and ride for 100/150km before clean/reapply.
When it's time to reapply i will remove my chain, put it in plastic jar with an automotive All Purpose Cleaner (ph 11) koch chemie green star in dilution 1:10, shake it, rinse, dry, put on bike, one drop of oil on each roller and restart for 100/150km. I will try to use ultrasonic bath with dishes soap but not easy to know how is the best time and t° on ultrasonic bath.
I have 3 oil, wt1 Wolf Tooth, boeshield t9 and Synergetic silca (i never ride on rainy day). On my new bike i am trying WT-1, no ride at the moment because actually the weather in Nord East of France is not OK rain everyday but on my Work-Stand when i pedal and shifting it's not so smooth like with the boeshield t9, Synergetic never try at the moment.
For me it's the most "easy to do" maintenance now there's to find the best "non wax" lubricant doing like this but in the jungle of choice the biggest problem is to find the best "non wax" lubricant with a good ratio quality/price for this i feel a lil bit alone in front of the possibilities.
This may be a bit unrelated, but I think it would be really good if one day you tested some sort of classic lubrication method - such as the 3in1 oil. These are still popular, especially with 'experienced' cyclists - reluctant to change their old ways.
Wet lubes are so bad compared to wax that even the best wet lube sits way behind the worst wax (other than Wend and Absolute Black, of course). Other than for the sake of curiosity, not sure if it would even be worth it.
Would love you to test Weldtite Dry Wax.
Hey Peter! Hmm at this stage i dont think that would ever find a spot - it looks just like a hundred other such lubricants. It may be ok, but.... the resources for each test there must be a compelling reason to test - either a genuine chance of being a truly great product not meh, or some pretty darn strong marketing claims to put to the test - i just cant work my way through the 1000+ lubricants on the market - many will be a higher priority test than just another dry teflon wax lube. Also note that in general, the market is very very much moving away from teflon - so older products with teflon in them are not likely to be tested either as we should be looking for high performing products that are sans teflon - there are already many great options for cyclists that have been tested that do not have teflon in them, which is a good direction. It is really up to these companies to move with the times with a new competitive product, but oh so many will just keep hoping legacy brand /product will keep ticking along for a long time. It is no doubt now extremely cheap to produce -they have that production going, and the bottles, and the labels - so many legacy products that are quite old will simply keep ticking on for as long as they can vs investing in an update. And it doesnt mean they are bad as such - just extremely likely a better option that is more enviro friendly is already known for people to switch too.
If a lube performs as poorly as some of them do, how do they even make it through R&D/testing at the company? Is it really straight up marketing or do they test them indoors on a trainer and then rely on hype? Some of these results are so bad I wonder if they even ride the stuff outside in real conditions.
Very correct thoughts. MANY products are from other industry, and may have had an ASTM industry standard test, but that test will have zero to do with how it will perform on a bicycle chain exposed to contamination. But since there is a lubricant there, and one can re bottle and re brand it - and then claim whatever one likes as there is nothing to stop them and everyone else does - well thats why bicycle chain lubricants are such a minefield of BS for consumers - how does one tell who's claims are remotely based on reality.
If they have developed specifically for bicycle chain - with genuine testing (with a protocol that actually enabled them to ascertain results... which is difficult) - it is not always guaranteed that effort = achievement. But if a company has sunk X $$ of capital and human capital resources into a product line - at some point that product needs to go to market and make a return. Even if it failed every test woefully, as one can still go to market claiming it is the best lubricant ever developed as anyone can claim whatever they like in this space - well, thats what they do to recoup a return.
Alas the whole system does not support / motivate companies to have succeed in developing a great product. Achieve the mission brief, or completely fail that - the marketing is likely to be basically exactly the same. It is a funny segment. Ie a financial planner cannot claim a guaranteed 200% return per annum a) without proof of how and b) without then demonstrating achieving that - or they will lose their licence, possible go to jail if it is all just a ponzi scheme. Some product markets there is regulation around false advertising. Not this market. They could probably claim it also treats baldness and incontinence whilst they are at it, all good.
Brilliant! When a company says they have "extensive field test data", I believe ZFC takes the correct approach... that being, don't take the statement at face value but instead inquire as to exactly what data they have. I might start doing this just to see what sort of response is given!
One great thing about WT-1 is that it's amazing in snowy weather. Even the thickest wet lubes get washed off in no time from all the ice and snow, but this one somehow stayed on. So as long as there's no dirt (basically only in snow), it works excellent.
Interesting! just still take note of your wear rates - i didnt test WT 1 in wet conditions as a) EVERY lubricant records a higher wear rate in wet block 4 vs dry cont. block 2, so if terrible in block 2, it will not improve in block 4 - so whilst it may not wash off, what may be running could be grinding paste. This may still be preferable to other lubricants washing off early - but then again, depending on how early - maybe not if they are much lower wear for the time they are on (and then can you top up?).
@@zerofrictioncycling992 yeah, it's till not good even in perfect conditions. Since then i switched to Tru Tension's all weather lube, and it's a lot better. Although since it's noisy from the start, i never know when to relube it :D
And guess the lube I've been using for the last year? Lmao, I am the worst at choosing this stuff. Thanks for your hard work, hopefully I'll make a better decision with my next purchase!
Well the good news is you and your drivetrain are going to be having a comparatively grand ol time soon when you switch to something high on the league table! :)
It’s working as advertised for me. I will let you know if that changes.
By that do you mean it feels like a lubricant, like other lubricants you have tried in the past? How is your chain wear tracking going? how have you assessed it vs top tested products?
What i am talking about is a robust controlled test, where WT-1 has many times greater wear rates vs top tested products, it readily absorbs contamination, and the entire premise / logic of the tiny tiny amount of cleaning agent in the product will obviously not be able to do anything. If the video didnt make these points clear, considering how over thoroughly i cover things.... well....
i suggest just go back to watching Wolf tooth marketing videos and stay happy - no point coming here for information from the worlds leading independent bicycle chain lubricant testing. If you are happy, stay happy, dont let me ruin your party as you merrily eat into your drivetrain, its your drivetrain, not mine.
@@zerofrictioncycling992 I applied it Saturday July 1st to our mountains bikes. We have four of them in my family. Sunday morning I wiped off the excess lube. If took a lot of microfiber towels and a lot of time to get all the extra lube off. We did a ride Sunday morning in South Dakota and the chains were black and greasy. The amount of grease was relative to how dirty the chain was before starting. My son who rides in every puddle was the worst and my wife who rides the least was the cleanest. After going through more towels cleaning the chains we did a afternoon ride in Wyoming. There was no grease this time, just a very thin layer of dust. It wiped off east and the chains are still functioning smooth.
@@jl3567 If you applied directly over factory grease, then the factory grease is still what is doing most of the lubrication, and will be higher performing than WT-1. However, abrasive dust contamination is still going to be be an issue over time (a very short time).
There are easy tests for this, either now or after a few more rides and do some cleaning maintenance, normally after first solvent bath / spray, flex chain laterally and you will be able to feel ./ hear grit crunching inside chain.
Mostly however, tracking chain wear with an accurate chain checker - time to a genuine 0.5% wear will be very short indeed vs top tested lubricants. And so you either need to replace chain then, or if you dont check, past that point you are just eating out the teeth on your cassette and chain ring ensuring you need to replace the cassette next new chain - which can be very expensive.
But sans actually tracking performance - you can also just apply basic physics and logic;
1) It is a wet lubricant being used offroad - will this attract a lot more abrasive contamination vs options that are not wet (generally recommend wax lubricants for offroad due to vastly superior dust contamination resistance)
2) Can the miniscule amount of cleaning agent actually do anything? (especially as the main wet lube is busy attracting a lot of contamination at the same time)
WT have not given you any specific data or information from their testing / development. ZFC has given you clear objective data from a robust test - using product on a bicycle chain, on a bicycle drivetrain, exposed to dust contamination, compared to other lubricants. Again its your 4 bikes drivetrains, not mine. I get the appeal to want to support WT, i want to support WT, i think they are overall a great little company - i am just saddened they put their name to this product as it is very poor, and the absurb cleaning as lubricant claims of the product.
Would love to see you test some of the Paety`s products. Tried it and found it way better than Muc-off (does not say a lot)
yes i will try to test one of theirs this year but at a glance...... im not confident - it seems just all the usual claims like hundreds and hundreds of similar products. but we shall see. which one are you using?
@@zerofrictioncycling992Please test : Maxima Chain Wax and Chain Pro, Peaty's Link Lube Dry, 😁
Thank's and best regards from Warsaw Poland 👊
So this stuff isn't the best. However, interested, to see the results of candle wax that is currently under way 😮
yeah i started then had to pull it as two other tests taking priority, one for a mfg pre TDF, and the other for ceramic speeds new wet conditions lube, and hot wax X is still taking up machine 3 now moving to single Application longevity testing. I am going to try to get to, but yeah....just testing DIY waxes is comparatively very low priority as it is just for a very small sub segment of one segment of the cycling world (immersive wax segment). Remember there is a massive segment that is dripping lubricants on. And even if i can get that test done, and a canning wax test done - it will just answer a small segment of the small segment. The emails i get re can i also pls test this blend including lanolin, and or beeswax, with some xylene or paraffin oil added, with this ratio of ptfe / moly / ws2 and on and on and on - and candle waxes vary a lot, as do hardness and softness grades of canning wax..... and we mostly already know the answers - use a good refined paraffin base (canning wax) and overall you will have a very good result - cheaper oily paraffin is a) going to be slower and b) will gunk up over time leading to why immersive waxing can be hated by some mechanics etc - so sure for a very small % having a comparision wear rate result for DIY wax will be cool - and i am going to try to get done indeed, just.... not as high on the priority list as other tests for many reasons.
I'm actually really interested in this as well. I switched from SCC Slick (the lube from the company Wolf Tooth claims to have worked with to develop WT-1) to immersive waxing with plain old paraffin, and my initial results are pretty promising.
What? No candle wax testing! I’ve already hoarded some candles from our hurricane stash.
I believe it acts well as a lubricant but the thing is it's to thick. I'm a very big fan of Rockin roll chain lube the dry wax red bottle you will need to add it a little more often but for what I do riding in sand all the time it doesn't attract a lot of sand and is very easy to blow of with the air compressor when I get home 👍
yes that is a big part of the problem for many lubricants marketed to cycling. It doesnt really matter if it is brilliant in a clean lab, it needs to be brilliant outside. Especially a lubricant marketed for the offroad demographic. A very wet wet lubricant -for the world of dirt and dust? The odds on that turning out to be a genuine top option path to go are............. Honestly it just flies in the face of basic logic. Its like ok lets make the new firemans uniforms largely out of lycra because in a running up the stairs test - the lighter more breathable performance of the fabric improved times. Groovy. What about when it is exposed to fire and high heat - ie the environment a firefighter will actually be operating in.
Personally i do not understand how multiple people at multiple stages sign off on the R&D investment, production and marketing of a product that is a very wet wet lubricant, to go out to the demographic riding in the world of dirt and dust. And saying the miniscule amount of cleaning agent will take care of all the shit it is gathering and making part of the lubricant. And the problem is most will trust and believe the clean as it lubricates claims. Even tech writers doing best lubricant articles. That is a problem that is then a lot of work for the likes of ZFC to try to correct to try and save drivetrains from an early death by liquid sandpaper.
Somehow the TH-cam algorithm pushed this onto my Home screen and I'll admit I took the click bait. For anyone else landing here and wanting a review of Wolf Tooth chain lube... I can say after using the stuff for 2.5 years my experience couldn't be any more different than what this lab tester guy has to say. My assumption is he never actually used it on a bike in the real world (outside of a lab) for a reasonable amount of time to give it an actual review. I run 100% XT 12 speed on my bikes and have not seen any excess wear and tear. My summer bike XT chain is getting on 2 seasons with about 2,000 miles (3200km) of mixed use in Sand, Dirt, and copper mine dust (chain checker still less than .5). Just follow the instructions on the bottle in the real world and this lube works, really really well. That's my 2.5 years of actual experience talking. But please, tell me how my actual experience with this product is wrong.
Hey David, thanks for your comments and input + real world feedback on the product, it is for sure great to hear any differing experiences, and i am not here to tell you your experience is wrong.
And correct i did not field test this one, as - honestly - in my view it did not warrant field testing.
However, please note that the ZFC test is not a short test. The test goes for thousands of kms, and includes contamination, and the test with the chain running on a bicycle drivetrain. The full test protocol can be found on the website - lubricant test page.
What has shown up very clearly over the years of testing is that wet lubricants absorb more contamination much more readily, as simply dirt and dust sticks on contact with wet lubricants. This is just a physical reality. And the more wet, the more sticks - AND the more the contamination has an easy pathway to move from outside to inside the chain. Unlike say a set wax lubricant where much less dust sticks, and then it has a tough time to get from outside to deep inside as its on set solid / semi solid substance.
Testing has resoundingly backed up the above basic physics. Not only do good wax lubricants waaaaay out perform wet lubricants in the world of dirt and dust due to absorbing much less contamination, but the wetter the lubricant, the worse things are.
The physical reality will be that a wet lubricant like WT-1 will simply be absorbing and becoming more abrasive (and allowing transport of such) at a much higher degree than other options. And that its tiny amount of detergent will do nothing, and claims that first there is cleaning then lubricating action takes over etc etc - that is just not...... true.
it is ok to be happy with circa 3200km to less than 0.5% (what chain checker? some can be very much not accurate....).Shimano 12s chains have wear durability nearly double that of their 11spd chains, so a big part of that wear life you are happy with is likely from the chains improved wear resistance treatments - they are a very hard wearing chain which is great - so - the top wax drips, and also the top wet drip lubricants tested such as synergetic or black diamond etc - i am extremely confident based on the extremely robust control test used by top manufacturers across the world - will deliver you much longer wear life than what you have experienced with WT-1.
But also, rather than me convince you, perhaps you can tell me what are the flaws in the testing? WT-1 was used on same control chain model, as per mfg instructions, it was exposed to the same amount of contamination at the same time as all other lubricants tested, yet it absorbed A LOT more contamination and delivered vastly higher wear rates even vs other wet lubricants tested. How else should the product be tested? Real world is extremely variable - no key variables are controlled from rider load (and profile), how much contamination, of what type, how often, level of maintenance etc etc - a robust control test block with contamination will benchmark one lubricant vs another much more accurately. All are exposed to the same amount at the same time and the same type at the same load. I can assure you, if one shows rapid wear of the chain and another shows very little - after the same test block, it is simply very clear what are the superior lubricants to use in the world of dirt and dust, and what are not. In WT-1 case, the test results matched the basic physics of a wet lubricant, and the token amount of detergent did precesely nil nix nada.
So again, not saying your experience is incorrect, but also - assuming checker accurate - 3200km on an XT 12spd to circa 0.5% is not anything great, at all. I can only say that if you have been happy with WT-1, if you did try an option that control tested many times lower wear, you will be doing cartwheels.
Perhaps you could write to Wolf tooth and ask them for their test results from development that showed WT-1 to be superior vs key competitors - one would think they would have that no? Let me know if you get it, i have been unable too....
So interesting. I have been very impressed by WT1 for my use case, which is very light "moon dust" that predictably jams up all my other lubes. WT1, keeps me rolling silently through the worst moon dust of the summer. I'm a believer, from riding, and using. Sure, of course thier marketing guy got a bit carried away. But this stuff is brilliant for the really nasty dirt rides.
It is a pretty wet wet lube, which may be why its not "jamming up" as such. However - if it is becoming a liquid sandpaper masquerading as a lubricant, you will pay a big price in wear. As the miniscule amount of cleaning agent can in no way deal with the amount of dust the wet lube is attracting, you will have a grinding paste in short order unless you are flush cleaning the chain yourself very regularly - which has its own costs re solvent and time.
So make sure you have a good chain checker, and are using it REGULARLY, and noting how many kms approx to 0.5% so that if you try something else next time, you have a benchmark vs "it feels groovy". Many of the worst known lubricants feel like a lubricant, when they are actually....you guessed it.... quickly turned into liquid sandpaper.
There is not really any getting around the control test. it is exposed to the same amount of contamination of the same time at the same intervals as all other products tested. So your riding might be comparatively harsher, or easier vs the control test - so you will get a result relative to that in your own riding based on the amount and type of contamination your chain is exposed to. In short if WT-1 had VERY high wear rate in block 2 - which it did, then the products that are many times lower wear than that in the zfc test will be many times lower wear for you in your riding. Other products that wont jam up are very likely to be something like silca synerg-E - but also to avoid dust clogging up wet lubricants - it might be worth considering a top wax drip as wax drips just inherently have much much higher dust contamination resistance that wet lubricants. In almost all use cases aside from top up lube in very long harsh events, wet lubricants and offroad are a miss match of product to purpose. Its why we dont oil the key locks on your front door. its why bearings have seals on them. Its why car air filters have an oil in the foam to grab the dust. Etc etc.
In short, if you have been happy with WT-1, a then even if you stick to a wet lube and go something like synerg-E or synergetic i think you will be doing cartwheels, and if you put them in a competition re the wear rate for your chain, i am supremely confident which ones will win. I think i would have the same chance of beating pogacar at strade bianchi as WT-1 has of being competitive :)
@@zerofrictioncycling992 Thanks for your analysis.
“Cleans and lubricates”… that statement always seems like an impossible task to me when it comes to chain lube. It’s not oil in a closed system.
I have only run this on one run and I want it off. Collected so much sand that I can tell that it will literally destroy my drive train in a short time.
yep - if i was me and i was you (ie - a consumer) - i would for sure be emailing WT about my experience. I hope everyone who is having the same experience does so, as WT should not be sullying their good name and reputation with this product.
I have used Wtb and this product is even worst than Muc Off which was horrible. Two off the dirtiest lubes that I have ever used.
Was looking for a really good chain lube, as have tried numerous ones, then came across wolftooth WT-1, seemed really good on paper.....11 months later and I'm now having to replace 2 sram drivetrains as this awful product has done damage to it with all the dirt and grit that clings to it, it clogs the jockey wheels like nothing else, chain is black when wiping after every ride.i would not recommend this product to anyone and does nothing that it says it does.
Yes it is really disappointing wolf tooth are sullying their good name on this product. It appears to be just re bottled and re branded SCC tech slick ride. But honestly marketing a very wet wet lube for the world of dirt and dust - that is just not great. And then the marketing on what a teensy amount of detergent will do in a product that attracts a huge amount of contamination - cmon Wolf Tooth unless all logic left their building they know thats not going to do anything....
Top wax drips are many times lower wear for offroad vs even the top 5 wet lubricants tested (and WT-1 is a long way from the top 5 wet!). Just the vastly higher contamination resistance of wax lubes makes them a much better choice vs wet for the world of dirt and dust. Treat the next drivetrain to one of the top 5 wax drips tested!
Pretty much any product that claims to clean and lube in one product does a poor job at both.
A large portion of what has to be cleaned is old contaminated lube.
If the cleaner portion of the product was capable of cleaning out old lube, it would attack the lube in the bottle. The lubrication is undermined by whatever cleaner is added. Likewise the cleaner is compromised by already being contaminated by the lube contained in the All in one type product.
yes indeed. The approach needs to be not getting contaminated to begin with. If it is actively gathering contamination for it to need to deal with, it is failing from the gun. It such a logic fail that WT really should not have fallen for it.
@@zerofrictioncycling992 Agreed. I hate to see it from wolf tooth. Everything I have from them (chainring, grips, headset) has been excellent. This just doesn't fit with the quality of the rest of their stuff.
0.0015 is just over one thousandth (not tenthousandth), point stands though
Sleep, water, sugar.
It doesn't appear that your test follows the usage instructions. I've just recently started using this and the instructions clearly state to wipe down the chain after every ride and reapply every 400 miles. Wiping down the chain definitely takes the dirt/grease off and leaves the chain looking clean. I dont understand why someone would ride 3000KM on a wet lube without cleaning your chain or reapplying. I'll continue to use and follow the instructions and see how it performs.
I used SCC Tech on my new Diverge at the recommendation of the dealer. I followed the instructions but became disillusioned after wiping down the chain only to have it turn black with sludge after less than 20 miles of riding (80/20 pavement/dirt). When I removed the chain for an ultrasonic cleaning after 500 miles I was appalled at the amount granular sludge that washed out. After a year I got tired of performing bi-weekly deep cleaning of the chain and switched to hot wax.
@@chawley52 100% of my riding is road. I was using squirt on my old bike but got a new one and didnt feel like stripping the chain and figured I would try WT-1 after seeing their video. drivetrain is very quiet but I agree, wiping it down after every ride my cloth is black. Have had the bike just over 1 month and put almost 700miles on it and have treated it twice. Wax is best for sure. I'll see how many miles I get out of this chain using WT-1 and then decide when it's time to replace it if I want to switch to wax or continue with WT-1. Thanks for the response.
I absolutely wipe down the chain thoroughly after application and work in, just as per the instructions. MANY cyclists do not clean their chains, either at all, or very often - most especially when a product claims it is cleaning the chain for you. And of course for the ZFC test, there can be no actual cleaning aside from wiping the chain after application, as the test is to see what the lubricant does or does not do, not what ones cleaning maintenance does. Lets say you clean your chain and reduce wear of WT-1 by half. That means then it is only 3 or 4 times worse than top competitors vs 7 or 8 times worse - and with those competitors having no cleaning maintenance etc. There is not really a way to dress this up as a competitive product, you can spend more time, labour and cleaning costs to hopefully make it less worse, that is all.
@@zerofrictioncycling992 understood. Thanks for the clarification. understanding that there are clearly better lubes I could be using, I'm going to see how this performs in my use case. if its quiet and I can wipe off the chain to clean it, it might meet my needs. Thanks again for all you do.
I used SCC's Slick, which has similar application instructions (which I followed religiously, wiped down after every single ride, re-applied as soon as the chain started making noise, roughly every 250mi), and was very unimpressed with the level of wear I was getting. I stripped a couple of chains that have a couple thousand miles each on them and switched over to immersive waxing. The thing that shocked me the most was the amount of rag fuzz (from SCC's microfiber cloths that they sent me!) that came out of the rollers when I shook the chain in the mineral spirits bath.
I've been immersive waxing in plain paraffin for a few hundred miles now, and not only does my drivetrain stays MASSIVELY cleaner, it seems to be lasting longer per application as well.
I had pretty much already reached the same conclusion that Adam has, but I reached it some weeks before this video even dropped. This stuff is pure marketing.
I've used for several months and not a fan. Sticky and messy and no noticable cleaning properties.
Yep. It is a pretty messy lubricant which = will absorb a lot of contamination. Cant believe you didnt notice that miniscule amount of detergent in there hahahahahaha
If you're riding off-road you have to, say it with me, 👏🏻 CLEAN 👏🏻YO👏🏻 SHIT👏🏻 so it's your fault you're using this improperly. The lube is just fine. Its kinda like how oneup carbon bars offer "compliance" but do you see anyone saying it replaces the need for fork suspension???!?!
Thats a fair way off. If a lubricant rapidly becomes very abrasive in offroad conditions, whereas others do not - then why would this product be a good choice. Who wants to use a product where they would have to flush clean re set their chain basically every ride, to try to keep wear in a not terrible place, when other products remain very low friction and wear for many, many rides?
Lets take say two vaccum powerheads - one clogs with hair every few minutes and need to remove the brushes, untangle the hair etc. The other does not tangle or clog and you just keep going and get rooms done efficiently. Do we just go oh just clean your shit - if you unclog it every 3 mins its fine, its not its fault your using it improperly and trying to use it clogged etc
I dont understand how your takeaway from the detail review is that a lubricant that becomes many times more abrasive than others very quickly - that the answer to that is to just constantly throw more time and cleaning product at it, vs simply choosing from a number of vastly better products.
@@zerofrictioncycling992 my point is to not use wet lube for those conditions in the first place. It's not intended for that use.
@@jackserna3440 it is heavily marketed by WT as an offroad lubricant. And an all conditions lubricant. Even for dry road conditions, it is very wet, and so becomes very dirty and more abrasive more quickly than many other wet lubes. It is just flat out not a competitive choice in any conditions. And the marketing claims re cleaning agent that will clean as it lubricates are extremely misleading, because it is complete BS.
So even for perfect riding conditions a product that quickly becomes a mess, has higher wear, has bullshit marketing claims, is expensive, and needs a lot of time and cleaning product cost to maintain to a level thats not flat out shite - to me does not class it as "The lube is just fine".
WT do a lot of great stuff. This product is a stain on their reputation. If they allowed themselves to be fooled by Scc Slick to sell that lubricant under their name - they just need to check the bloody wear rates of their chains using it vs other competitor products - any in the top 5 on the league table - and then they should quickly pull this product from their line up and put their name to a lubricant that does not become liquid sandpaper in new york minute - especially in the demographic they mainly market this product too.
Your analogy re bars replacing suspension etc is not valid at all. All chains need lubricant. Bicycle chain lubricant is a nightmare for cyclists because any mfg can claim anything they like - and they do - with zero to substantiate. But the difference in wear rates, maintenance and cost to run between the genuine excellent products vs poor performing products is MASSIVE. And for those that end up on a poor product thanks to BS marketing = big ouch in wear rates and costs. And that is not cool. And mfg who have a great product struggle to stand out in the sea of products when anyone can claim anything, even if the product is terrible.
So part of ZFC work in the league table from the worlds most exhaustive and realistic test is to make it easy to see which products are genuinely great products brought to market, and who has just brought great marketing to market but a terrible product.
It really is not a difficult one with WT-1 which category this one sits it. It is a very poor product. It is marketed such that the word "misleading" is being very kind. It is painful to me that mfg bring such products and marketing to sale which will hurt the wear and running costs and maintenance costs of those who buy them vs good products. They need to be held to account. Being an apologist for crap products can simply further more cyclists using a poor product vs one that would be excellent for them, and supporting MFg's bringing excellent products to market vs drivetrain eating shit.
Sorry that may all sound harsher in typing that if i was to talk through the point - im not trying to sound harsh directly back at you - im just pretty harsh on shite vs genuinely good products, and pretty harsh on BS marketing - because it really has an impact on a cyclists hard earned $$. It is a wild west in this space and that just leaves everyone vulnerable to BS marketing - any ol shite can be bottled up as a bicycle chain lube and put out whatever you want to make up about what it does and how and just have at it to gain market share. Me / ZFC work very hard to combat that, its a big job of one tiny little independent test facility - and so i push back strongly against situations where there is support for bad products that should not be out there, and definitely not marketed by otherwise excellent brands like WT.
its like pick your favourite nutrition and supplements brand - and then they start pushing vaping and cigarettes. Be like wtf. Why is a good company like WT pushing a drivetrain eating cutting fluid with obvious complete BS clean as lube claims (for legal purposes - in my opinion - based on robust testing however). They should not, and hopefully in time ZFC testing and reviews and then public support of that helps reverse such situations.
@@zerofrictioncycling992 Well done 👍🏻 It is the wild wild west. We definitely need better products as tested by theoretical and applied research in all conditions. I'll subscribe and follow for more information
Anyone reading this and considering Silca Synergetic: think twice. There’s more to a lube than just wear rate. Synergetic is one of the noisiest lubes I’ve used in 20+ years with a very rough feel. It wasn’t for me. Went back to smoove and can hear myself think on the bike again
Hey Hendrik - i think that noise/ roughness issue is likely the chain / drivetrain. Ie if things are worn and not meshing well, synergetic - being that there is a very small amount of a light viscosity lubricant - it will not do much to dampen that. Smoove is quite a dampening lubricant and has a very good reputation for making drivetrains feel... smooth - it can mask poor mesh / rougher running well. Many wet lubricants - how things feel / sound - that is simply going to depend on the drivetrain itself. It is a at the end of they day, just a lubricant. It is a thin film of lubricant between metal parts. If the drivetrain is running rough, that is the drivetrain, not the lubricant - the lubricant simply isnt masking what is happening. If a drivetrain is running smooth and you add a very fast, slippery light lubricant to it, it will just keep running smooth.
Not my experience. I use Synergetic on my indoor trainer & reapply every month after about 500 kms & find it smooth & quiet. Negligible wear according to my Pedro’s chain checker tool after about 10,000 kms so no complaints from me!
@@easterguts Thanks for chipping in too - yes synergetic, as a lubricant - is extremely - well, lubricious - and very wear protective. The short version is a lubricant is not going to introduce roughness, that has to be present from the components, some simply dont mask or dampen things a much.
I enjoyed the dialog at the end discussing where WT may have went wrong. Of interest is WT attaching their otherwise reputable name to a poorly performing product. It seems that it may only take one person with bad judgment in a company to devastate a brand. Note the person at AB Inbev who thought it wise to have a cross-dressing transgender be the face of Bud Light beer, the dominantly best selling beer in America for decades. Now, after a 26% sales slide and unwavering boycott of the beer, Bud Light is in serious risk of dropping to number 2 with little hope of recovering. WT should tread carefully.