Chain lubrication has a long history on r.b.tech as a "religious issue."
Billions of electrons have been spent over the decades in arguments
defending individual's choices, and disparaging the lubrication choices
of others.

What's been new in the last ten years or so is well accepted data done
by precise measurements. One example is here:
https://www.bikeradar.com/news/friction-facts-publishes-ultrafast-chain-lube-formula/

The latest I've seen pop up was in the current issue of _Bicycling_
magazine. There's a long article about a guy doing extremely detailed
lab testing of dozens of lubricants under a variety of conditions
(clean, dirty, wet, etc.). He tracks chain wear (or "stretch") but says
it correlates very well with efficiency, as measured in the Friction
Facts lab tests.

Of course, I'm mentioning this because the results of both those tests
confirm what I've been saying for maybe 30 years: that dry wax based
lubes work really, really well. :-) They take the top places in this
guy's rankings, by large margins, giving many times longer chain life.
The article even breaks down the issue of costs (notify Joerg!) telling
how dry wax lubes can save serious amounts of money on chains, cogs and
chainrings.

I've used hot paraffin wax with a bit of oil blended in for decades. I'm
not so much worried about expense or minimizing friction loss. I just
like that it's easy for me to apply, it lasts a nice long time and it
keeps my bike far cleaner than any wet lube. But it's nice to see even
more confirmation of testing information that first popped up way back
in the late 1970s:
https://flic.kr/p/dkUGq6
https://flic.kr/p/dkULS1

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 5:18:11 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Chain lubrication has a long history on r.b.tech as a "religious issue."
> Billions of electrons have been spent over the decades in arguments
> defending individual's choices, and disparaging the lubrication choices
> of others.
>
> What's been new in the last ten years or so is well accepted data done
> by precise measurements. One example is here:
> https://www.bikeradar.com/news/friction-facts-publishes-ultrafast-chain-lube-formula/
>
> The latest I've seen pop up was in the current issue of _Bicycling_
> magazine. There's a long article about a guy doing extremely detailed
> lab testing of dozens of lubricants under a variety of conditions
> (clean, dirty, wet, etc.). He tracks chain wear (or "stretch") but says
> it correlates very well with efficiency, as measured in the Friction
> Facts lab tests.
>
> Of course, I'm mentioning this because the results of both those tests
> confirm what I've been saying for maybe 30 years: that dry wax based
> lubes work really, really well. :-) They take the top places in this
> guy's rankings, by large margins, giving many times longer chain life.
> The article even breaks down the issue of costs (notify Joerg!) telling
> how dry wax lubes can save serious amounts of money on chains, cogs and
> chainrings.
>
> I've used hot paraffin wax with a bit of oil blended in for decades. I'm
> not so much worried about expense or minimizing friction loss. I just
> like that it's easy for me to apply, it lasts a nice long time and it
> keeps my bike far cleaner than any wet lube. But it's nice to see even
> more confirmation of testing information that first popped up way back
> in the late 1970s:
> https://flic.kr/p/dkUGq6
> https://flic.kr/p/dkULS1
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

Oh man, chain lubrication is discussed to death. Anyone with a little sense understands that sand/dirt in the chain is what makes chains wear. Knowing that it is not hard to understand that oil is the dumbest chainlube if you want your chain to last.

Lou

On 12/6/2023 11:53 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 5:18:11 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> Chain lubrication has a long history on r.b.tech as a "religious issue."
>> Billions of electrons have been spent over the decades in arguments
>> defending individual's choices, and disparaging the lubrication choices
>> of others.
>>
>> What's been new in the last ten years or so is well accepted data done
>> by precise measurements. One example is here:
>> https://www.bikeradar.com/news/friction-facts-publishes-ultrafast-chain-lube-formula/
>>
>> The latest I've seen pop up was in the current issue of _Bicycling_
>> magazine. There's a long article about a guy doing extremely detailed
>> lab testing of dozens of lubricants under a variety of conditions
>> (clean, dirty, wet, etc.). He tracks chain wear (or "stretch") but says
>> it correlates very well with efficiency, as measured in the Friction
>> Facts lab tests.
>>
>> Of course, I'm mentioning this because the results of both those tests
>> confirm what I've been saying for maybe 30 years: that dry wax based
>> lubes work really, really well. :-) They take the top places in this
>> guy's rankings, by large margins, giving many times longer chain life.
>> The article even breaks down the issue of costs (notify Joerg!) telling
>> how dry wax lubes can save serious amounts of money on chains, cogs and
>> chainrings.
>>
>> I've used hot paraffin wax with a bit of oil blended in for decades. I'm
>> not so much worried about expense or minimizing friction loss. I just
>> like that it's easy for me to apply, it lasts a nice long time and it
>> keeps my bike far cleaner than any wet lube. But it's nice to see even
>> more confirmation of testing information that first popped up way back
>> in the late 1970s:
>> https://flic.kr/p/dkUGq6
>> https://flic.kr/p/dkULS1
>>
>> --
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
>
> Oh man, chain lubrication is discussed to death. Anyone with a little sense understands that sand/dirt in the chain is what makes chains wear. Knowing that it is not hard to understand that oil is the dumbest chainlube if you want your chain to last.

And yet many do not understand!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 13:38:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 12/6/2023 11:53 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 5:18:11?PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> Chain lubrication has a long history on r.b.tech as a "religious issue."
>>> Billions of electrons have been spent over the decades in arguments
>>> defending individual's choices, and disparaging the lubrication choices
>>> of others.
>>>
>>> What's been new in the last ten years or so is well accepted data done
>>> by precise measurements. One example is here:
>>> https://www.bikeradar.com/news/friction-facts-publishes-ultrafast-chain-lube-formula/
>>>
>>> The latest I've seen pop up was in the current issue of _Bicycling_
>>> magazine. There's a long article about a guy doing extremely detailed
>>> lab testing of dozens of lubricants under a variety of conditions
>>> (clean, dirty, wet, etc.). He tracks chain wear (or "stretch") but says
>>> it correlates very well with efficiency, as measured in the Friction
>>> Facts lab tests.
>>>
>>> Of course, I'm mentioning this because the results of both those tests
>>> confirm what I've been saying for maybe 30 years: that dry wax based
>>> lubes work really, really well. :-) They take the top places in this
>>> guy's rankings, by large margins, giving many times longer chain life.
>>> The article even breaks down the issue of costs (notify Joerg!) telling
>>> how dry wax lubes can save serious amounts of money on chains, cogs and
>>> chainrings.
>>>
>>> I've used hot paraffin wax with a bit of oil blended in for decades. I'm
>>> not so much worried about expense or minimizing friction loss. I just
>>> like that it's easy for me to apply, it lasts a nice long time and it
>>> keeps my bike far cleaner than any wet lube. But it's nice to see even
>>> more confirmation of testing information that first popped up way back
>>> in the late 1970s:
>>> https://flic.kr/p/dkUGq6
>>> https://flic.kr/p/dkULS1
>>>
>>> --
>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>
>>
>> Oh man, chain lubrication is discussed to death. Anyone with a little sense understands that sand/dirt in the chain is what makes chains wear. Knowing that it is not hard to understand that oil is the dumbest chainlube if you want your chain to last.
>
>And yet many do not understand!

and many simply disagree. Aint diversity wonderful?

On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 8:53:47 AM UTC-8, Lou Holtman wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 5:18:11 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > Chain lubrication has a long history on r.b.tech as a "religious issue."
> > Billions of electrons have been spent over the decades in arguments
> > defending individual's choices, and disparaging the lubrication choices
> > of others.
> >
> > What's been new in the last ten years or so is well accepted data done
> > by precise measurements. One example is here:
> > https://www.bikeradar.com/news/friction-facts-publishes-ultrafast-chain-lube-formula/
> >
> > The latest I've seen pop up was in the current issue of _Bicycling_
> > magazine. There's a long article about a guy doing extremely detailed
> > lab testing of dozens of lubricants under a variety of conditions
> > (clean, dirty, wet, etc.). He tracks chain wear (or "stretch") but says
> > it correlates very well with efficiency, as measured in the Friction
> > Facts lab tests.
> >
> > Of course, I'm mentioning this because the results of both those tests
> > confirm what I've been saying for maybe 30 years: that dry wax based
> > lubes work really, really well. :-) They take the top places in this
> > guy's rankings, by large margins, giving many times longer chain life.
> > The article even breaks down the issue of costs (notify Joerg!) telling
> > how dry wax lubes can save serious amounts of money on chains, cogs and
> > chainrings.
> >
> > I've used hot paraffin wax with a bit of oil blended in for decades. I'm
> > not so much worried about expense or minimizing friction loss. I just
> > like that it's easy for me to apply, it lasts a nice long time and it
> > keeps my bike far cleaner than any wet lube. But it's nice to see even
> > more confirmation of testing information that first popped up way back
> > in the late 1970s:
> > https://flic.kr/p/dkUGq6
> > https://flic.kr/p/dkULS1
> >
> > --
> > - Frank Krygowski
> Oh man, chain lubrication is discussed to death. Anyone with a little sense understands that sand/dirt in the chain is what makes chains wear. Knowing that it is not hard to understand that oil is the dumbest chainlube if you want your chain to last.
>
> Lou
Well, until you wear off the exterior coating of wax, it can pick up various types of dirt. I agree that oil is worse but nothing is "perfect" Perhaps there could be a way of cooking Teflon into the chain links and rollers. That would probably be a lot better.

On 12/6/2023 1:08 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 13:38:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 12/6/2023 11:53 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 5:18:11?PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> Chain lubrication has a long history on r.b.tech as a "religious issue."
>>>> Billions of electrons have been spent over the decades in arguments
>>>> defending individual's choices, and disparaging the lubrication choices
>>>> of others.
>>>>
>>>> What's been new in the last ten years or so is well accepted data done
>>>> by precise measurements. One example is here:
>>>> https://www.bikeradar.com/news/friction-facts-publishes-ultrafast-chain-lube-formula/
>>>>
>>>> The latest I've seen pop up was in the current issue of _Bicycling_
>>>> magazine. There's a long article about a guy doing extremely detailed
>>>> lab testing of dozens of lubricants under a variety of conditions
>>>> (clean, dirty, wet, etc.). He tracks chain wear (or "stretch") but says
>>>> it correlates very well with efficiency, as measured in the Friction
>>>> Facts lab tests.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, I'm mentioning this because the results of both those tests
>>>> confirm what I've been saying for maybe 30 years: that dry wax based
>>>> lubes work really, really well. :-) They take the top places in this
>>>> guy's rankings, by large margins, giving many times longer chain life.
>>>> The article even breaks down the issue of costs (notify Joerg!) telling
>>>> how dry wax lubes can save serious amounts of money on chains, cogs and
>>>> chainrings.
>>>>
>>>> I've used hot paraffin wax with a bit of oil blended in for decades. I'm
>>>> not so much worried about expense or minimizing friction loss. I just
>>>> like that it's easy for me to apply, it lasts a nice long time and it
>>>> keeps my bike far cleaner than any wet lube. But it's nice to see even
>>>> more confirmation of testing information that first popped up way back
>>>> in the late 1970s:
>>>> https://flic.kr/p/dkUGq6
>>>> https://flic.kr/p/dkULS1
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh man, chain lubrication is discussed to death. Anyone with a little sense understands that sand/dirt in the chain is what makes chains wear. Knowing that it is not hard to understand that oil is the dumbest chainlube if you want your chain to last.
>>
>> And yet many do not understand!
>
> and many simply disagree. Aint diversity wonderful?

We now only 'celebrate' meaningless superficial visual
diversity. Actual intellectual or viewpoint diversity is not
allowed.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 8:08:16 PM UTC+1, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 13:38:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >On 12/6/2023 11:53 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 5:18:11?PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>> Chain lubrication has a long history on r.b.tech as a "religious issue."
> >>> Billions of electrons have been spent over the decades in arguments
> >>> defending individual's choices, and disparaging the lubrication choices
> >>> of others.
> >>>
> >>> What's been new in the last ten years or so is well accepted data done
> >>> by precise measurements. One example is here:
> >>> https://www.bikeradar.com/news/friction-facts-publishes-ultrafast-chain-lube-formula/
> >>>
> >>> The latest I've seen pop up was in the current issue of _Bicycling_
> >>> magazine. There's a long article about a guy doing extremely detailed
> >>> lab testing of dozens of lubricants under a variety of conditions
> >>> (clean, dirty, wet, etc.). He tracks chain wear (or "stretch") but says
> >>> it correlates very well with efficiency, as measured in the Friction
> >>> Facts lab tests.
> >>>
> >>> Of course, I'm mentioning this because the results of both those tests
> >>> confirm what I've been saying for maybe 30 years: that dry wax based
> >>> lubes work really, really well. :-) They take the top places in this
> >>> guy's rankings, by large margins, giving many times longer chain life..
> >>> The article even breaks down the issue of costs (notify Joerg!) telling
> >>> how dry wax lubes can save serious amounts of money on chains, cogs and
> >>> chainrings.
> >>>
> >>> I've used hot paraffin wax with a bit of oil blended in for decades. I'm
> >>> not so much worried about expense or minimizing friction loss. I just
> >>> like that it's easy for me to apply, it lasts a nice long time and it
> >>> keeps my bike far cleaner than any wet lube. But it's nice to see even
> >>> more confirmation of testing information that first popped up way back
> >>> in the late 1970s:
> >>> https://flic.kr/p/dkUGq6
> >>> https://flic.kr/p/dkULS1
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> - Frank Krygowski
> >>
> >>
> >> Oh man, chain lubrication is discussed to death. Anyone with a little sense understands that sand/dirt in the chain is what makes chains wear. Knowing that it is not hard to understand that oil is the dumbest chainlube if you want your chain to last.
> >
> >And yet many do not understand!
> and many simply disagree. Aint diversity wonderful?

And I don’t mind. Just smile when they mention their chainlife of 2500-3500 km and their trouble of cleaning their oily chain with nasty solvents.

Lou

On 12/6/2023 3:31 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 8:08:16 PM UTC+1, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 13:38:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/6/2023 11:53 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 5:18:11?PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> Chain lubrication has a long history on r.b.tech as a "religious issue."
>>>>> Billions of electrons have been spent over the decades in arguments
>>>>> defending individual's choices, and disparaging the lubrication choices
>>>>> of others.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's been new in the last ten years or so is well accepted data done
>>>>> by precise measurements. One example is here:
>>>>> https://www.bikeradar.com/news/friction-facts-publishes-ultrafast-chain-lube-formula/
>>>>>
>>>>> The latest I've seen pop up was in the current issue of _Bicycling_
>>>>> magazine. There's a long article about a guy doing extremely detailed
>>>>> lab testing of dozens of lubricants under a variety of conditions
>>>>> (clean, dirty, wet, etc.). He tracks chain wear (or "stretch") but says
>>>>> it correlates very well with efficiency, as measured in the Friction
>>>>> Facts lab tests.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, I'm mentioning this because the results of both those tests
>>>>> confirm what I've been saying for maybe 30 years: that dry wax based
>>>>> lubes work really, really well. :-) They take the top places in this
>>>>> guy's rankings, by large margins, giving many times longer chain life.
>>>>> The article even breaks down the issue of costs (notify Joerg!) telling
>>>>> how dry wax lubes can save serious amounts of money on chains, cogs and
>>>>> chainrings.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've used hot paraffin wax with a bit of oil blended in for decades. I'm
>>>>> not so much worried about expense or minimizing friction loss. I just
>>>>> like that it's easy for me to apply, it lasts a nice long time and it
>>>>> keeps my bike far cleaner than any wet lube. But it's nice to see even
>>>>> more confirmation of testing information that first popped up way back
>>>>> in the late 1970s:
>>>>> https://flic.kr/p/dkUGq6
>>>>> https://flic.kr/p/dkULS1
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh man, chain lubrication is discussed to death. Anyone with a little sense understands that sand/dirt in the chain is what makes chains wear. Knowing that it is not hard to understand that oil is the dumbest chainlube if you want your chain to last.
>>>
>>> And yet many do not understand!
>> and many simply disagree. Aint diversity wonderful?
>
> And I don’t mind. Just smile when they mention their chainlife of 2500-3500 km and their trouble of cleaning their oily chain with nasty solvents.

Right. We're in an age where "I disagree" is acceptable to some even if
it goes against direct measurements, recorded facts, sworn testimony,
proven science, etc. When possible, it's best to not bother with such
people. Logic is wasted on them.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 2:44:32 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 12/6/2023 3:31 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 8:08:16 PM UTC+1, Catrike Rider wrote:
> >> On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 13:38:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 12/6/2023 11:53 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 5:18:11?PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>> Chain lubrication has a long history on r.b.tech as a "religious issue."
> >>>>> Billions of electrons have been spent over the decades in arguments
> >>>>> defending individual's choices, and disparaging the lubrication choices
> >>>>> of others.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What's been new in the last ten years or so is well accepted data done
> >>>>> by precise measurements. One example is here:
> >>>>> https://www.bikeradar.com/news/friction-facts-publishes-ultrafast-chain-lube-formula/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The latest I've seen pop up was in the current issue of _Bicycling_
> >>>>> magazine. There's a long article about a guy doing extremely detailed
> >>>>> lab testing of dozens of lubricants under a variety of conditions
> >>>>> (clean, dirty, wet, etc.). He tracks chain wear (or "stretch") but says
> >>>>> it correlates very well with efficiency, as measured in the Friction
> >>>>> Facts lab tests.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Of course, I'm mentioning this because the results of both those tests
> >>>>> confirm what I've been saying for maybe 30 years: that dry wax based
> >>>>> lubes work really, really well. :-) They take the top places in this
> >>>>> guy's rankings, by large margins, giving many times longer chain life.
> >>>>> The article even breaks down the issue of costs (notify Joerg!) telling
> >>>>> how dry wax lubes can save serious amounts of money on chains, cogs and
> >>>>> chainrings.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I've used hot paraffin wax with a bit of oil blended in for decades.. I'm
> >>>>> not so much worried about expense or minimizing friction loss. I just
> >>>>> like that it's easy for me to apply, it lasts a nice long time and it
> >>>>> keeps my bike far cleaner than any wet lube. But it's nice to see even
> >>>>> more confirmation of testing information that first popped up way back
> >>>>> in the late 1970s:
> >>>>> https://flic.kr/p/dkUGq6
> >>>>> https://flic.kr/p/dkULS1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> - Frank Krygowski
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Oh man, chain lubrication is discussed to death. Anyone with a little sense understands that sand/dirt in the chain is what makes chains wear. Knowing that it is not hard to understand that oil is the dumbest chainlube if you want your chain to last.
> >>>
> >>> And yet many do not understand!
> >> and many simply disagree. Aint diversity wonderful?
> >
> > And I don’t mind. Just smile when they mention their chainlife of 2500-3500 km and their trouble of cleaning their oily chain with nasty solvents.
> Right. We're in an age where "I disagree" is acceptable to some even if
> it goes against direct measurements, recorded facts, sworn testimony,
> proven science, etc. When possible, it's best to not bother with such
> people. Logic is wasted on them.
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski
I use Menards lumber store 3-in-1 oil on my chain. The oil say says it is for less than 3/4 HP motors and I don't put that out for any length of time. Using this ultra cheap big box store lube I get about 5-6000 miles on a chain. Wipe it down with OMS about every 400 miles and re-lube. Occassionally if really cleaning the drive train I take the chain off and dunk in jar of OMS and re-attach. No wax for me thank you
Deacon Mark

On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 12:54:12 PM UTC-8, Mark Cleary wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 2:44:32 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 12/6/2023 3:31 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 8:08:16 PM UTC+1, Catrike Rider wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 13:38:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> > >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On 12/6/2023 11:53 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
> > >>>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 5:18:11?PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > >>>>> Chain lubrication has a long history on r.b.tech as a "religious issue."
> > >>>>> Billions of electrons have been spent over the decades in arguments
> > >>>>> defending individual's choices, and disparaging the lubrication choices
> > >>>>> of others.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> What's been new in the last ten years or so is well accepted data done
> > >>>>> by precise measurements. One example is here:
> > >>>>> https://www.bikeradar.com/news/friction-facts-publishes-ultrafast-chain-lube-formula/
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The latest I've seen pop up was in the current issue of _Bicycling_
> > >>>>> magazine. There's a long article about a guy doing extremely detailed
> > >>>>> lab testing of dozens of lubricants under a variety of conditions
> > >>>>> (clean, dirty, wet, etc.). He tracks chain wear (or "stretch") but says
> > >>>>> it correlates very well with efficiency, as measured in the Friction
> > >>>>> Facts lab tests.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Of course, I'm mentioning this because the results of both those tests
> > >>>>> confirm what I've been saying for maybe 30 years: that dry wax based
> > >>>>> lubes work really, really well. :-) They take the top places in this
> > >>>>> guy's rankings, by large margins, giving many times longer chain life.
> > >>>>> The article even breaks down the issue of costs (notify Joerg!) telling
> > >>>>> how dry wax lubes can save serious amounts of money on chains, cogs and
> > >>>>> chainrings.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I've used hot paraffin wax with a bit of oil blended in for decades. I'm
> > >>>>> not so much worried about expense or minimizing friction loss. I just
> > >>>>> like that it's easy for me to apply, it lasts a nice long time and it
> > >>>>> keeps my bike far cleaner than any wet lube. But it's nice to see even
> > >>>>> more confirmation of testing information that first popped up way back
> > >>>>> in the late 1970s:
> > >>>>> https://flic.kr/p/dkUGq6
> > >>>>> https://flic.kr/p/dkULS1
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> --
> > >>>>> - Frank Krygowski
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Oh man, chain lubrication is discussed to death. Anyone with a little sense understands that sand/dirt in the chain is what makes chains wear.. Knowing that it is not hard to understand that oil is the dumbest chainlube if you want your chain to last.
> > >>>
> > >>> And yet many do not understand!
> > >> and many simply disagree. Aint diversity wonderful?
> > >
> > > And I don’t mind. Just smile when they mention their chainlife of 2500-3500 km and their trouble of cleaning their oily chain with nasty solvents.
> > Right. We're in an age where "I disagree" is acceptable to some even if
> > it goes against direct measurements, recorded facts, sworn testimony,
> > proven science, etc. When possible, it's best to not bother with such
> > people. Logic is wasted on them.
> >
> > --
> > - Frank Krygowski
> I use Menards lumber store 3-in-1 oil on my chain. The oil say says it is for less than 3/4 HP motors and I don't put that out for any length of time. Using this ultra cheap big box store lube I get about 5-6000 miles on a chain. Wipe it down with OMS about every 400 miles and re-lube. Occassionally if really cleaning the drive train I take the chain off and dunk in jar of OMS and re-attach. No wax for me thank you
> Deacon Mark

People that use light weight cheap oil and oil it down well and often find that their chains and rings have as good a life as Lou's wax or Frank's blind belief in science he doesn't understand because every case is different.

I use wax for one reason - the chain and cogs stay cleaner to the eye.

On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 10:16:02 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 12:54:12 PM UTC-8, Mark Cleary wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 2:44:32 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > On 12/6/2023 3:31 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 8:08:16 PM UTC+1, Catrike Rider wrote:
> > > >> On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 13:38:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> > > >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> On 12/6/2023 11:53 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
> > > >>>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 5:18:11?PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > >>>>> Chain lubrication has a long history on r.b.tech as a "religious issue."
> > > >>>>> Billions of electrons have been spent over the decades in arguments
> > > >>>>> defending individual's choices, and disparaging the lubrication choices
> > > >>>>> of others.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> What's been new in the last ten years or so is well accepted data done
> > > >>>>> by precise measurements. One example is here:
> > > >>>>> https://www.bikeradar.com/news/friction-facts-publishes-ultrafast-chain-lube-formula/
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> The latest I've seen pop up was in the current issue of _Bicycling_
> > > >>>>> magazine. There's a long article about a guy doing extremely detailed
> > > >>>>> lab testing of dozens of lubricants under a variety of conditions
> > > >>>>> (clean, dirty, wet, etc.). He tracks chain wear (or "stretch") but says
> > > >>>>> it correlates very well with efficiency, as measured in the Friction
> > > >>>>> Facts lab tests.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Of course, I'm mentioning this because the results of both those tests
> > > >>>>> confirm what I've been saying for maybe 30 years: that dry wax based
> > > >>>>> lubes work really, really well. :-) They take the top places in this
> > > >>>>> guy's rankings, by large margins, giving many times longer chain life.
> > > >>>>> The article even breaks down the issue of costs (notify Joerg!) telling
> > > >>>>> how dry wax lubes can save serious amounts of money on chains, cogs and
> > > >>>>> chainrings.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I've used hot paraffin wax with a bit of oil blended in for decades. I'm
> > > >>>>> not so much worried about expense or minimizing friction loss. I just
> > > >>>>> like that it's easy for me to apply, it lasts a nice long time and it
> > > >>>>> keeps my bike far cleaner than any wet lube. But it's nice to see even
> > > >>>>> more confirmation of testing information that first popped up way back
> > > >>>>> in the late 1970s:
> > > >>>>> https://flic.kr/p/dkUGq6
> > > >>>>> https://flic.kr/p/dkULS1
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> --
> > > >>>>> - Frank Krygowski
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Oh man, chain lubrication is discussed to death. Anyone with a little sense understands that sand/dirt in the chain is what makes chains wear. Knowing that it is not hard to understand that oil is the dumbest chainlube if you want your chain to last.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> And yet many do not understand!
> > > >> and many simply disagree. Aint diversity wonderful?
> > > >
> > > > And I don’t mind. Just smile when they mention their chainlife of 2500-3500 km and their trouble of cleaning their oily chain with nasty solvents.
> > > Right. We're in an age where "I disagree" is acceptable to some even if
> > > it goes against direct measurements, recorded facts, sworn testimony,
> > > proven science, etc. When possible, it's best to not bother with such
> > > people. Logic is wasted on them.
> > >
> > > --
> > > - Frank Krygowski
> > I use Menards lumber store 3-in-1 oil on my chain. The oil say says it is for less than 3/4 HP motors and I don't put that out for any length of time. Using this ultra cheap big box store lube I get about 5-6000 miles on a chain. Wipe it down with OMS about every 400 miles and re-lube. Occassionally if really cleaning the drive train I take the chain off and dunk in jar of OMS and re-attach. No wax for me thank you
> > Deacon Mark
> People that use light weight cheap oil and oil it down well and often find that their chains and rings have as good a life as Lou's wax or Frank's blind belief in science he doesn't understand because every case is different.
>
> I use wax for one reason - the chain and cogs stay cleaner to the eye.

Well if your chain and cogs stay cleaner what does that mean? I cleaned my crossbike after the very muddy ride of last Sunday with just water (hosed it of at the carwash) and dried bike and chain and relubed my chain. Whole proces took me 30 minutes in total spread over a couple of intervals. Bike is still on the workstand I can post a picture of the relubed chain.

Lou

On 12/6/2023 4:16 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 12:54:12 PM UTC-8, Mark Cleary wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 2:44:32 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 12/6/2023 3:31 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 8:08:16 PM UTC+1, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 13:38:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/6/2023 11:53 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 5:18:11?PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>> Chain lubrication has a long history on r.b.tech as a "religious issue."
>>>>>>>> Billions of electrons have been spent over the decades in arguments
>>>>>>>> defending individual's choices, and disparaging the lubrication choices
>>>>>>>> of others.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What's been new in the last ten years or so is well accepted data done
>>>>>>>> by precise measurements. One example is here:
>>>>>>>> https://www.bikeradar.com/news/friction-facts-publishes-ultrafast-chain-lube-formula/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The latest I've seen pop up was in the current issue of _Bicycling_
>>>>>>>> magazine. There's a long article about a guy doing extremely detailed
>>>>>>>> lab testing of dozens of lubricants under a variety of conditions
>>>>>>>> (clean, dirty, wet, etc.). He tracks chain wear (or "stretch") but says
>>>>>>>> it correlates very well with efficiency, as measured in the Friction
>>>>>>>> Facts lab tests.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course, I'm mentioning this because the results of both those tests
>>>>>>>> confirm what I've been saying for maybe 30 years: that dry wax based
>>>>>>>> lubes work really, really well. :-) They take the top places in this
>>>>>>>> guy's rankings, by large margins, giving many times longer chain life.
>>>>>>>> The article even breaks down the issue of costs (notify Joerg!) telling
>>>>>>>> how dry wax lubes can save serious amounts of money on chains, cogs and
>>>>>>>> chainrings.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've used hot paraffin wax with a bit of oil blended in for decades. I'm
>>>>>>>> not so much worried about expense or minimizing friction loss. I just
>>>>>>>> like that it's easy for me to apply, it lasts a nice long time and it
>>>>>>>> keeps my bike far cleaner than any wet lube. But it's nice to see even
>>>>>>>> more confirmation of testing information that first popped up way back
>>>>>>>> in the late 1970s:
>>>>>>>> https://flic.kr/p/dkUGq6
>>>>>>>> https://flic.kr/p/dkULS1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh man, chain lubrication is discussed to death. Anyone with a little sense understands that sand/dirt in the chain is what makes chains wear. Knowing that it is not hard to understand that oil is the dumbest chainlube if you want your chain to last.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And yet many do not understand!
>>>>> and many simply disagree. Aint diversity wonderful?
>>>>
>>>> And I don’t mind. Just smile when they mention their chainlife of 2500-3500 km and their trouble of cleaning their oily chain with nasty solvents.
>>> Right. We're in an age where "I disagree" is acceptable to some even if
>>> it goes against direct measurements, recorded facts, sworn testimony,
>>> proven science, etc. When possible, it's best to not bother with such
>>> people. Logic is wasted on them.
>>>
>>> --
>>> - Frank Krygowski
>> I use Menards lumber store 3-in-1 oil on my chain. The oil say says it is for less than 3/4 HP motors and I don't put that out for any length of time. Using this ultra cheap big box store lube I get about 5-6000 miles on a chain. Wipe it down with OMS about every 400 miles and re-lube. Occassionally if really cleaning the drive train I take the chain off and dunk in jar of OMS and re-attach. No wax for me thank you
>> Deacon Mark
>
> People that use light weight cheap oil and oil it down well and often find that their chains and rings have as good a life as Lou's wax or Frank's blind belief in science he doesn't understand because every case is different.

Got data?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 1:44:53 PM UTC-8, Lou Holtman wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 10:16:02 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 12:54:12 PM UTC-8, Mark Cleary wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 2:44:32 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > > On 12/6/2023 3:31 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 8:08:16 PM UTC+1, Catrike Rider wrote:
> > > > >> On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 13:38:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> > > > >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> On 12/6/2023 11:53 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
> > > > >>>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 5:18:11?PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > > >>>>> Chain lubrication has a long history on r.b.tech as a "religious issue."
> > > > >>>>> Billions of electrons have been spent over the decades in arguments
> > > > >>>>> defending individual's choices, and disparaging the lubrication choices
> > > > >>>>> of others.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> What's been new in the last ten years or so is well accepted data done
> > > > >>>>> by precise measurements. One example is here:
> > > > >>>>> https://www.bikeradar.com/news/friction-facts-publishes-ultrafast-chain-lube-formula/
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> The latest I've seen pop up was in the current issue of _Bicycling_
> > > > >>>>> magazine. There's a long article about a guy doing extremely detailed
> > > > >>>>> lab testing of dozens of lubricants under a variety of conditions
> > > > >>>>> (clean, dirty, wet, etc.). He tracks chain wear (or "stretch") but says
> > > > >>>>> it correlates very well with efficiency, as measured in the Friction
> > > > >>>>> Facts lab tests.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Of course, I'm mentioning this because the results of both those tests
> > > > >>>>> confirm what I've been saying for maybe 30 years: that dry wax based
> > > > >>>>> lubes work really, really well. :-) They take the top places in this
> > > > >>>>> guy's rankings, by large margins, giving many times longer chain life.
> > > > >>>>> The article even breaks down the issue of costs (notify Joerg!) telling
> > > > >>>>> how dry wax lubes can save serious amounts of money on chains, cogs and
> > > > >>>>> chainrings.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> I've used hot paraffin wax with a bit of oil blended in for decades. I'm
> > > > >>>>> not so much worried about expense or minimizing friction loss.. I just
> > > > >>>>> like that it's easy for me to apply, it lasts a nice long time and it
> > > > >>>>> keeps my bike far cleaner than any wet lube. But it's nice to see even
> > > > >>>>> more confirmation of testing information that first popped up way back
> > > > >>>>> in the late 1970s:
> > > > >>>>> https://flic.kr/p/dkUGq6
> > > > >>>>> https://flic.kr/p/dkULS1
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> --
> > > > >>>>> - Frank Krygowski
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Oh man, chain lubrication is discussed to death. Anyone with a little sense understands that sand/dirt in the chain is what makes chains wear. Knowing that it is not hard to understand that oil is the dumbest chainlube if you want your chain to last.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> And yet many do not understand!
> > > > >> and many simply disagree. Aint diversity wonderful?
> > > > >
> > > > > And I don’t mind. Just smile when they mention their chainlife of 2500-3500 km and their trouble of cleaning their oily chain with nasty solvents.
> > > > Right. We're in an age where "I disagree" is acceptable to some even if
> > > > it goes against direct measurements, recorded facts, sworn testimony,
> > > > proven science, etc. When possible, it's best to not bother with such
> > > > people. Logic is wasted on them.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > - Frank Krygowski
> > > I use Menards lumber store 3-in-1 oil on my chain. The oil say says it is for less than 3/4 HP motors and I don't put that out for any length of time. Using this ultra cheap big box store lube I get about 5-6000 miles on a chain. Wipe it down with OMS about every 400 miles and re-lube. Occassionally if really cleaning the drive train I take the chain off and dunk in jar of OMS and re-attach. No wax for me thank you
> > > Deacon Mark
> > People that use light weight cheap oil and oil it down well and often find that their chains and rings have as good a life as Lou's wax or Frank's blind belief in science he doesn't understand because every case is different.
> >
> > I use wax for one reason - the chain and cogs stay cleaner to the eye.
> Well if your chain and cogs stay cleaner what does that mean? I cleaned my crossbike after the very muddy ride of last Sunday with just water (hosed it of at the carwash) and dried bike and chain and relubed my chain. Whole proces took me 30 minutes in total spread over a couple of intervals. Bike is still on the workstand I can post a picture of the relubed chain.
>
> Lou
You and I prefer wax. Others ride in different conditions and may not want to invest in an ultrasonic cleaner and a hot pot to melt the wax in. Also there is the matter of workspace. People can easily put a bike through a commercial carwash, blow dry it and dump a load of cheap light oil on it then and before every ride and get the same result. We are rather special cases and showing what bike nerds we are is probably avoidable. And most people do not want getting their bike dirty.

On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 11:09:57 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 1:44:53 PM UTC-8, Lou Holtman wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 10:16:02 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 12:54:12 PM UTC-8, Mark Cleary wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 2:44:32 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > > > On 12/6/2023 3:31 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 8:08:16 PM UTC+1, Catrike Rider wrote:
> > > > > >> On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 13:38:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> > > > > >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> On 12/6/2023 11:53 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
> > > > > >>>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 5:18:11?PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > > > >>>>> Chain lubrication has a long history on r.b.tech as a "religious issue."
> > > > > >>>>> Billions of electrons have been spent over the decades in arguments
> > > > > >>>>> defending individual's choices, and disparaging the lubrication choices
> > > > > >>>>> of others.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> What's been new in the last ten years or so is well accepted data done
> > > > > >>>>> by precise measurements. One example is here:
> > > > > >>>>> https://www.bikeradar.com/news/friction-facts-publishes-ultrafast-chain-lube-formula/
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> The latest I've seen pop up was in the current issue of _Bicycling_
> > > > > >>>>> magazine. There's a long article about a guy doing extremely detailed
> > > > > >>>>> lab testing of dozens of lubricants under a variety of conditions
> > > > > >>>>> (clean, dirty, wet, etc.). He tracks chain wear (or "stretch") but says
> > > > > >>>>> it correlates very well with efficiency, as measured in the Friction
> > > > > >>>>> Facts lab tests.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Of course, I'm mentioning this because the results of both those tests
> > > > > >>>>> confirm what I've been saying for maybe 30 years: that dry wax based
> > > > > >>>>> lubes work really, really well. :-) They take the top places in this
> > > > > >>>>> guy's rankings, by large margins, giving many times longer chain life.
> > > > > >>>>> The article even breaks down the issue of costs (notify Joerg!) telling
> > > > > >>>>> how dry wax lubes can save serious amounts of money on chains, cogs and
> > > > > >>>>> chainrings.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> I've used hot paraffin wax with a bit of oil blended in for decades. I'm
> > > > > >>>>> not so much worried about expense or minimizing friction loss. I just
> > > > > >>>>> like that it's easy for me to apply, it lasts a nice long time and it
> > > > > >>>>> keeps my bike far cleaner than any wet lube. But it's nice to see even
> > > > > >>>>> more confirmation of testing information that first popped up way back
> > > > > >>>>> in the late 1970s:
> > > > > >>>>> https://flic.kr/p/dkUGq6
> > > > > >>>>> https://flic.kr/p/dkULS1
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> --
> > > > > >>>>> - Frank Krygowski
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Oh man, chain lubrication is discussed to death. Anyone with a little sense understands that sand/dirt in the chain is what makes chains wear. Knowing that it is not hard to understand that oil is the dumbest chainlube if you want your chain to last.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> And yet many do not understand!
> > > > > >> and many simply disagree. Aint diversity wonderful?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And I don’t mind. Just smile when they mention their chainlife of 2500-3500 km and their trouble of cleaning their oily chain with nasty solvents.
> > > > > Right. We're in an age where "I disagree" is acceptable to some even if
> > > > > it goes against direct measurements, recorded facts, sworn testimony,
> > > > > proven science, etc. When possible, it's best to not bother with such
> > > > > people. Logic is wasted on them.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > - Frank Krygowski
> > > > I use Menards lumber store 3-in-1 oil on my chain. The oil say says it is for less than 3/4 HP motors and I don't put that out for any length of time. Using this ultra cheap big box store lube I get about 5-6000 miles on a chain. Wipe it down with OMS about every 400 miles and re-lube. Occassionally if really cleaning the drive train I take the chain off and dunk in jar of OMS and re-attach. No wax for me thank you
> > > > Deacon Mark
> > > People that use light weight cheap oil and oil it down well and often find that their chains and rings have as good a life as Lou's wax or Frank's blind belief in science he doesn't understand because every case is different.
> > >
> > > I use wax for one reason - the chain and cogs stay cleaner to the eye..
> > Well if your chain and cogs stay cleaner what does that mean? I cleaned my crossbike after the very muddy ride of last Sunday with just water (hosed it of at the carwash) and dried bike and chain and relubed my chain. Whole proces took me 30 minutes in total spread over a couple of intervals. Bike is still on the workstand I can post a picture of the relubed chain.
> >
> > Lou
> You and I prefer wax. Others ride in different conditions and may not want to invest in an ultrasonic cleaner and a hot pot to melt the wax in. Also there is the matter of workspace. People can easily put a bike through a commercial carwash, blow dry it and dump a load of cheap light oil on it then and before every ride and get the same result. We are rather special cases and showing what bike nerds we are is probably avoidable. And most people do not want getting their bike dirty.

I only give my opinion what to use when asked. I don’t take my chain off or put it in a ultra sonic cleaner or in a hot pot. I think too that that us excessive. My chains stay on the bike, only cleaned with water and soap and I use ready to use lube that I can buy, Squirt in my case.

Lou

On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 12:54:10 -0800 (PST), Mark Cleary
<deaconmjc08@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 2:44:32?PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 12/6/2023 3:31 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 8:08:16?PM UTC+1, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 13:38:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On 12/6/2023 11:53 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>> >>>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 5:18:11?PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >>>>> Chain lubrication has a long history on r.b.tech as a "religious issue."
>> >>>>> Billions of electrons have been spent over the decades in arguments
>> >>>>> defending individual's choices, and disparaging the lubrication choices
>> >>>>> of others.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> What's been new in the last ten years or so is well accepted data done
>> >>>>> by precise measurements. One example is here:
>> >>>>> https://www.bikeradar.com/news/friction-facts-publishes-ultrafast-chain-lube-formula/
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The latest I've seen pop up was in the current issue of _Bicycling_
>> >>>>> magazine. There's a long article about a guy doing extremely detailed
>> >>>>> lab testing of dozens of lubricants under a variety of conditions
>> >>>>> (clean, dirty, wet, etc.). He tracks chain wear (or "stretch") but says
>> >>>>> it correlates very well with efficiency, as measured in the Friction
>> >>>>> Facts lab tests.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Of course, I'm mentioning this because the results of both those tests
>> >>>>> confirm what I've been saying for maybe 30 years: that dry wax based
>> >>>>> lubes work really, really well. :-) They take the top places in this
>> >>>>> guy's rankings, by large margins, giving many times longer chain life.
>> >>>>> The article even breaks down the issue of costs (notify Joerg!) telling
>> >>>>> how dry wax lubes can save serious amounts of money on chains, cogs and
>> >>>>> chainrings.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I've used hot paraffin wax with a bit of oil blended in for decades. I'm
>> >>>>> not so much worried about expense or minimizing friction loss. I just
>> >>>>> like that it's easy for me to apply, it lasts a nice long time and it
>> >>>>> keeps my bike far cleaner than any wet lube. But it's nice to see even
>> >>>>> more confirmation of testing information that first popped up way back
>> >>>>> in the late 1970s:
>> >>>>> https://flic.kr/p/dkUGq6
>> >>>>> https://flic.kr/p/dkULS1
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Oh man, chain lubrication is discussed to death. Anyone with a little sense understands that sand/dirt in the chain is what makes chains wear. Knowing that it is not hard to understand that oil is the dumbest chainlube if you want your chain to last.
>> >>>
>> >>> And yet many do not understand!
>> >> and many simply disagree. Aint diversity wonderful?
>> >
>> > And I don’t mind. Just smile when they mention their chainlife of 2500-3500 km and their trouble of cleaning their oily chain with nasty solvents.
>> Right. We're in an age where "I disagree" is acceptable to some even if
>> it goes against direct measurements, recorded facts, sworn testimony,
>> proven science, etc. When possible, it's best to not bother with such
>> people. Logic is wasted on them.
>>
>> --
>> - Frank Krygowski
>I use Menards lumber store 3-in-1 oil on my chain. The oil say says it is for less than 3/4 HP motors and I don't put that out for any length of time. Using this ultra cheap big box store lube I get about 5-6000 miles on a chain. Wipe it down with OMS about every 400 miles and re-lube. Occassionally if really cleaning the drive train I take the chain off and dunk in jar of OMS and re-attach. No wax for me thank you
>Deacon Mark

I hit my White Lightning lubed chain with a power washer every now and
then, keeping away from the hubs.

On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 15:44:25 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 12/6/2023 3:31 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 8:08:16?PM UTC+1, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>> On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 13:38:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/6/2023 11:53 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 5:18:11?PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> Chain lubrication has a long history on r.b.tech as a "religious issue."
>>>>>> Billions of electrons have been spent over the decades in arguments
>>>>>> defending individual's choices, and disparaging the lubrication choices
>>>>>> of others.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's been new in the last ten years or so is well accepted data done
>>>>>> by precise measurements. One example is here:
>>>>>> https://www.bikeradar.com/news/friction-facts-publishes-ultrafast-chain-lube-formula/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The latest I've seen pop up was in the current issue of _Bicycling_
>>>>>> magazine. There's a long article about a guy doing extremely detailed
>>>>>> lab testing of dozens of lubricants under a variety of conditions
>>>>>> (clean, dirty, wet, etc.). He tracks chain wear (or "stretch") but says
>>>>>> it correlates very well with efficiency, as measured in the Friction
>>>>>> Facts lab tests.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, I'm mentioning this because the results of both those tests
>>>>>> confirm what I've been saying for maybe 30 years: that dry wax based
>>>>>> lubes work really, really well. :-) They take the top places in this
>>>>>> guy's rankings, by large margins, giving many times longer chain life.
>>>>>> The article even breaks down the issue of costs (notify Joerg!) telling
>>>>>> how dry wax lubes can save serious amounts of money on chains, cogs and
>>>>>> chainrings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've used hot paraffin wax with a bit of oil blended in for decades. I'm
>>>>>> not so much worried about expense or minimizing friction loss. I just
>>>>>> like that it's easy for me to apply, it lasts a nice long time and it
>>>>>> keeps my bike far cleaner than any wet lube. But it's nice to see even
>>>>>> more confirmation of testing information that first popped up way back
>>>>>> in the late 1970s:
>>>>>> https://flic.kr/p/dkUGq6
>>>>>> https://flic.kr/p/dkULS1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh man, chain lubrication is discussed to death. Anyone with a little sense understands that sand/dirt in the chain is what makes chains wear. Knowing that it is not hard to understand that oil is the dumbest chainlube if you want your chain to last.
>>>>
>>>> And yet many do not understand!
>>> and many simply disagree. Aint diversity wonderful?
>>
>> And I don’t mind. Just smile when they mention their chainlife of 2500-3500 km and their trouble of cleaning their oily chain with nasty solvents.
>
>Right. We're in an age where "I disagree" is acceptable to some even if
>it goes against direct measurements, recorded facts, sworn testimony,
>proven science, etc.

<EYEROLL> What a load of horse turds. See above...

I generally disagree when people use "studies" to validate their
insistence that I'm wrong not to do what they think is best for me.

>When possible, it's best to not bother with such
>people.

That's fine with me...

> Logic is wasted on them.

That's from the guy who insists that correlation = causation.

On 12/6/2023 5:09 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 1:44:53 PM UTC-8, Lou Holtman wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 10:16:02 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 12:54:12 PM UTC-8, Mark Cleary wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 2:44:32 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 12/6/2023 3:31 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 8:08:16 PM UTC+1, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 13:38:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/6/2023 11:53 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 5:18:11?PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Chain lubrication has a long history on r.b.tech as a "religious issue."
>>>>>>>>>> Billions of electrons have been spent over the decades in arguments
>>>>>>>>>> defending individual's choices, and disparaging the lubrication choices
>>>>>>>>>> of others.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What's been new in the last ten years or so is well accepted data done
>>>>>>>>>> by precise measurements. One example is here:
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bikeradar.com/news/friction-facts-publishes-ultrafast-chain-lube-formula/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The latest I've seen pop up was in the current issue of _Bicycling_
>>>>>>>>>> magazine. There's a long article about a guy doing extremely detailed
>>>>>>>>>> lab testing of dozens of lubricants under a variety of conditions
>>>>>>>>>> (clean, dirty, wet, etc.). He tracks chain wear (or "stretch") but says
>>>>>>>>>> it correlates very well with efficiency, as measured in the Friction
>>>>>>>>>> Facts lab tests.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Of course, I'm mentioning this because the results of both those tests
>>>>>>>>>> confirm what I've been saying for maybe 30 years: that dry wax based
>>>>>>>>>> lubes work really, really well. :-) They take the top places in this
>>>>>>>>>> guy's rankings, by large margins, giving many times longer chain life.
>>>>>>>>>> The article even breaks down the issue of costs (notify Joerg!) telling
>>>>>>>>>> how dry wax lubes can save serious amounts of money on chains, cogs and
>>>>>>>>>> chainrings.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've used hot paraffin wax with a bit of oil blended in for decades. I'm
>>>>>>>>>> not so much worried about expense or minimizing friction loss. I just
>>>>>>>>>> like that it's easy for me to apply, it lasts a nice long time and it
>>>>>>>>>> keeps my bike far cleaner than any wet lube. But it's nice to see even
>>>>>>>>>> more confirmation of testing information that first popped up way back
>>>>>>>>>> in the late 1970s:
>>>>>>>>>> https://flic.kr/p/dkUGq6
>>>>>>>>>> https://flic.kr/p/dkULS1
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oh man, chain lubrication is discussed to death. Anyone with a little sense understands that sand/dirt in the chain is what makes chains wear. Knowing that it is not hard to understand that oil is the dumbest chainlube if you want your chain to last.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And yet many do not understand!
>>>>>>> and many simply disagree. Aint diversity wonderful?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And I don’t mind. Just smile when they mention their chainlife of 2500-3500 km and their trouble of cleaning their oily chain with nasty solvents.
>>>>> Right. We're in an age where "I disagree" is acceptable to some even if
>>>>> it goes against direct measurements, recorded facts, sworn testimony,
>>>>> proven science, etc. When possible, it's best to not bother with such
>>>>> people. Logic is wasted on them.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>> I use Menards lumber store 3-in-1 oil on my chain. The oil say says it is for less than 3/4 HP motors and I don't put that out for any length of time. Using this ultra cheap big box store lube I get about 5-6000 miles on a chain. Wipe it down with OMS about every 400 miles and re-lube. Occassionally if really cleaning the drive train I take the chain off and dunk in jar of OMS and re-attach. No wax for me thank you
>>>> Deacon Mark
>>> People that use light weight cheap oil and oil it down well and often find that their chains and rings have as good a life as Lou's wax or Frank's blind belief in science he doesn't understand because every case is different.
>>>
>>> I use wax for one reason - the chain and cogs stay cleaner to the eye.
>> Well if your chain and cogs stay cleaner what does that mean? I cleaned my crossbike after the very muddy ride of last Sunday with just water (hosed it of at the carwash) and dried bike and chain and relubed my chain. Whole proces took me 30 minutes in total spread over a couple of intervals. Bike is still on the workstand I can post a picture of the relubed chain.
>>
>> Lou
> You and I prefer wax. Others ride in different conditions and may not want to invest in an ultrasonic cleaner and a hot pot to melt the wax in. Also there is the matter of workspace. People can easily put a bike through a commercial carwash, blow dry it and dump a load of cheap light oil on it then and before every ride and get the same result. We are rather special cases and showing what bike nerds we are is probably avoidable. And most people do not want getting their bike dirty.
An ultrasonic cleaner is not required. I don't have one. I don't use a
hot pot to apply the wax.

But I'm not saying anyone must, or should, use a wax lube. As always,
you're free to use whatever you like. I'm just referencing measured data
that shows that for most cycling, a wax lube actually works best.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Lou Holtman <lou.holtman@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 11:09:57 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 1:44:53 PM UTC-8, Lou Holtman wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 10:16:02 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 12:54:12 PM UTC-8, Mark Cleary wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 2:44:32 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/6/2023 3:31 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 8:08:16 PM UTC+1, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 13:38:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 12/6/2023 11:53 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 5:18:11?PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Chain lubrication has a long history on r.b.tech as a "religious issue."
>>>>>>>>>>> Billions of electrons have been spent over the decades in arguments
>>>>>>>>>>> defending individual's choices, and disparaging the lubrication choices
>>>>>>>>>>> of others.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What's been new in the last ten years or so is well accepted data done
>>>>>>>>>>> by precise measurements. One example is here:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bikeradar.com/news/friction-facts-publishes-ultrafast-chain-lube-formula/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The latest I've seen pop up was in the current issue of _Bicycling_
>>>>>>>>>>> magazine. There's a long article about a guy doing extremely detailed
>>>>>>>>>>> lab testing of dozens of lubricants under a variety of conditions
>>>>>>>>>>> (clean, dirty, wet, etc.). He tracks chain wear (or "stretch") but says
>>>>>>>>>>> it correlates very well with efficiency, as measured in the Friction
>>>>>>>>>>> Facts lab tests.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, I'm mentioning this because the results of both those tests
>>>>>>>>>>> confirm what I've been saying for maybe 30 years: that dry wax based
>>>>>>>>>>> lubes work really, really well. :-) They take the top places in this
>>>>>>>>>>> guy's rankings, by large margins, giving many times longer chain life.
>>>>>>>>>>> The article even breaks down the issue of costs (notify Joerg!) telling
>>>>>>>>>>> how dry wax lubes can save serious amounts of money on chains, cogs and
>>>>>>>>>>> chainrings.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I've used hot paraffin wax with a bit of oil blended in for decades. I'm
>>>>>>>>>>> not so much worried about expense or minimizing friction loss. I just
>>>>>>>>>>> like that it's easy for me to apply, it lasts a nice long time and it
>>>>>>>>>>> keeps my bike far cleaner than any wet lube. But it's nice to see even
>>>>>>>>>>> more confirmation of testing information that first popped up way back
>>>>>>>>>>> in the late 1970s:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://flic.kr/p/dkUGq6
>>>>>>>>>>> https://flic.kr/p/dkULS1
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Oh man, chain lubrication is discussed to death. Anyone with a little sense
>>>>>>>>>> understands that sand/dirt in the chain is what makes chains
>>>>>>>>>> wear. Knowing that it is not hard to understand that oil is the
>>>>>>>>>> dumbest chainlube if you want your chain to last.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And yet many do not understand!
>>>>>>>> and many simply disagree. Aint diversity wonderful?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And I don’t mind. Just smile when they mention their chainlife of
>>>>>>> 2500-3500 km and their trouble of cleaning their oily chain with nasty solvents.
>>>>>> Right. We're in an age where "I disagree" is acceptable to some even if
>>>>>> it goes against direct measurements, recorded facts, sworn testimony,
>>>>>> proven science, etc. When possible, it's best to not bother with such
>>>>>> people. Logic is wasted on them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>> I use Menards lumber store 3-in-1 oil on my chain. The oil say says
>>>>> it is for less than 3/4 HP motors and I don't put that out for any
>>>>> length of time. Using this ultra cheap big box store lube I get about
>>>>> 5-6000 miles on a chain. Wipe it down with OMS about every 400 miles
>>>>> and re-lube. Occassionally if really cleaning the drive train I take
>>>>> the chain off and dunk in jar of OMS and re-attach. No wax for me thank you
>>>>> Deacon Mark
>>>> People that use light weight cheap oil and oil it down well and often
>>>> find that their chains and rings have as good a life as Lou's wax or
>>>> Frank's blind belief in science he doesn't understand because every case is different.
>>>>
>>>> I use wax for one reason - the chain and cogs stay cleaner to the eye.
>>> Well if your chain and cogs stay cleaner what does that mean? I cleaned
>>> my crossbike after the very muddy ride of last Sunday with just water
>>> (hosed it of at the carwash) and dried bike and chain and relubed my
>>> chain. Whole proces took me 30 minutes in total spread over a couple of
>>> intervals. Bike is still on the workstand I can post a picture of the relubed chain.
>>>
>>> Lou
>> You and I prefer wax. Others ride in different conditions and may not
>> want to invest in an ultrasonic cleaner and a hot pot to melt the wax
>> in. Also there is the matter of workspace. People can easily put a bike
>> through a commercial carwash, blow dry it and dump a load of cheap light
>> oil on it then and before every ride and get the same result. We are
>> rather special cases and showing what bike nerds we are is probably
>> avoidable. And most people do not want getting their bike dirty.
>
> I only give my opinion what to use when asked. I don’t take my chain off
> or put it in a ultra sonic cleaner or in a hot pot. I think too that that
> us excessive. My chains stay on the bike, only cleaned with water and
> soap and I use ready to use lube that I can buy, Squirt in my case.
>
> Lou
>

I do use Squirt though on very wet MTB rides it’s not able to stick to, ie
gets washed out.

Works well on the commute and Gravel bike both of which don’t get subjected
to bog snorkelling type of use.

I do still use squirt on the MTB but if I know it’s going to be really wet
I’ll use an oil for that ride.

Roger Merriman

On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 14:46:53 -0800 (PST), Lou Holtman
<lou.holtman@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 11:09:57?PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 1:44:53?PM UTC-8, Lou Holtman wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 10:16:02?PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > > On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 12:54:12?PM UTC-8, Mark Cleary wrote:
>> > > > On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 2:44:32?PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> > > > > On 12/6/2023 3:31 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>> > > > > > On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 8:08:16?PM UTC+1, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> > > > > >> On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 13:38:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> > > > > >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>> On 12/6/2023 11:53 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>> > > > > >>>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 5:18:11?PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>> Chain lubrication has a long history on r.b.tech as a "religious issue."
>> > > > > >>>>> Billions of electrons have been spent over the decades in arguments
>> > > > > >>>>> defending individual's choices, and disparaging the lubrication choices
>> > > > > >>>>> of others.
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>> What's been new in the last ten years or so is well accepted data done
>> > > > > >>>>> by precise measurements. One example is here:
>> > > > > >>>>> https://www.bikeradar.com/news/friction-facts-publishes-ultrafast-chain-lube-formula/
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>> The latest I've seen pop up was in the current issue of _Bicycling_
>> > > > > >>>>> magazine. There's a long article about a guy doing extremely detailed
>> > > > > >>>>> lab testing of dozens of lubricants under a variety of conditions
>> > > > > >>>>> (clean, dirty, wet, etc.). He tracks chain wear (or "stretch") but says
>> > > > > >>>>> it correlates very well with efficiency, as measured in the Friction
>> > > > > >>>>> Facts lab tests.
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>> Of course, I'm mentioning this because the results of both those tests
>> > > > > >>>>> confirm what I've been saying for maybe 30 years: that dry wax based
>> > > > > >>>>> lubes work really, really well. :-) They take the top places in this
>> > > > > >>>>> guy's rankings, by large margins, giving many times longer chain life.
>> > > > > >>>>> The article even breaks down the issue of costs (notify Joerg!) telling
>> > > > > >>>>> how dry wax lubes can save serious amounts of money on chains, cogs and
>> > > > > >>>>> chainrings.
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>> I've used hot paraffin wax with a bit of oil blended in for decades. I'm
>> > > > > >>>>> not so much worried about expense or minimizing friction loss. I just
>> > > > > >>>>> like that it's easy for me to apply, it lasts a nice long time and it
>> > > > > >>>>> keeps my bike far cleaner than any wet lube. But it's nice to see even
>> > > > > >>>>> more confirmation of testing information that first popped up way back
>> > > > > >>>>> in the late 1970s:
>> > > > > >>>>> https://flic.kr/p/dkUGq6
>> > > > > >>>>> https://flic.kr/p/dkULS1
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>> --
>> > > > > >>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> Oh man, chain lubrication is discussed to death. Anyone with a little sense understands that sand/dirt in the chain is what makes chains wear. Knowing that it is not hard to understand that oil is the dumbest chainlube if you want your chain to last.
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> And yet many do not understand!
>> > > > > >> and many simply disagree. Aint diversity wonderful?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > And I don’t mind. Just smile when they mention their chainlife of 2500-3500 km and their trouble of cleaning their oily chain with nasty solvents.
>> > > > > Right. We're in an age where "I disagree" is acceptable to some even if
>> > > > > it goes against direct measurements, recorded facts, sworn testimony,
>> > > > > proven science, etc. When possible, it's best to not bother with such
>> > > > > people. Logic is wasted on them.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > - Frank Krygowski
>> > > > I use Menards lumber store 3-in-1 oil on my chain. The oil say says it is for less than 3/4 HP motors and I don't put that out for any length of time. Using this ultra cheap big box store lube I get about 5-6000 miles on a chain. Wipe it down with OMS about every 400 miles and re-lube. Occassionally if really cleaning the drive train I take the chain off and dunk in jar of OMS and re-attach. No wax for me thank you
>> > > > Deacon Mark
>> > > People that use light weight cheap oil and oil it down well and often find that their chains and rings have as good a life as Lou's wax or Frank's blind belief in science he doesn't understand because every case is different.
>> > >
>> > > I use wax for one reason - the chain and cogs stay cleaner to the eye.
>> > Well if your chain and cogs stay cleaner what does that mean? I cleaned my crossbike after the very muddy ride of last Sunday with just water (hosed it of at the carwash) and dried bike and chain and relubed my chain. Whole proces took me 30 minutes in total spread over a couple of intervals. Bike is still on the workstand I can post a picture of the relubed chain.
>> >
>> > Lou
>> You and I prefer wax. Others ride in different conditions and may not want to invest in an ultrasonic cleaner and a hot pot to melt the wax in. Also there is the matter of workspace. People can easily put a bike through a commercial carwash, blow dry it and dump a load of cheap light oil on it then and before every ride and get the same result. We are rather special cases and showing what bike nerds we are is probably avoidable. And most people do not want getting their bike dirty.
>
>I only give my opinion what to use when asked. I don’t take my chain off or put it in a ultra sonic cleaner or in a hot pot. I think too that that us excessive. My chains stay on the bike, only cleaned with water and soap and I use ready to use lube that I can buy, Squirt in my case.
>
>Lou

In California minimum salary is $20.50/hour and Amazon lists chains
for 10 speed for as cheap as $21.99. If a chain lasts for, lets say, 2
month then that equates to a bit over 6 hours's work per year. Is it
worth worrying about?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 08:45:54 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

> In California minimum salary is $20.50/hour

California minimum wage, after Jan 1, 2024, will be $16 per hr.
<https://www.dir.ca.gov/DIRNews/2023/2023-66.html>
Some cities and counties in California have a local minimum wage that
is higher than the state rate.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 14:09:54 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>You and I prefer wax. Others ride in different conditions and may not want to invest in an ultrasonic cleaner and a hot pot to melt the wax in. Also there is the matter of workspace. People can easily put a bike through a commercial carwash, blow dry it and dump a load of cheap light oil on it then and before every ride and get the same result. We are rather special cases and showing what bike nerds we are is probably avoidable. And most people do not want getting their bike dirty.

Tom: The last time I attempted to count your bicycles, you allegedly
had about 12 bicycles.
<https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:ugcPost:6912346811772932096/>
(The last message is from Tom).
"And here I am with 12 bikes in the garage."

That assumes you have enough room in your garage workshop for your
Taurus X, a bicycle workshop, and 12 bicycles. If you rotated your
daily ride between all 12 bicycles:
<https://www.facebook.com/thomas.kunich.1/photos_by>
your average mileage per bicycle would be 1/12-th of your annual ride
mileage. That would be much less wear on each of your 14 chains. You
also tend to purchase a bicycle, ride it a few times, and then sell
it, which would also reduce the wear on each chain. I agree that you
are a VERY special case.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Wed, 06 Dec 2023 18:37:17 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 08:45:54 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> In California minimum salary is $20.50/hour
>
>California minimum wage, after Jan 1, 2024, will be $16 per hr.
><https://www.dir.ca.gov/DIRNews/2023/2023-66.html>
>Some cities and counties in California have a local minimum wage that
>is higher than the state rate.

Yes, but had I quoted the minimum in Eastovershoe,CA someone would
have said, no, no, no, the state rate is different :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 10:09:55 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 06 Dec 2023 18:37:17 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 08:45:54 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> In California minimum salary is $20.50/hour
>>
>>California minimum wage, after Jan 1, 2024, will be $16 per hr.
>><https://www.dir.ca.gov/DIRNews/2023/2023-66.html>
>>Some cities and counties in California have a local minimum wage that
>>is higher than the state rate.
>
>Yes, but had I quoted the minimum in Eastovershoe,CA someone would
>have said, no, no, no, the state rate is different :-)

Nope. They would have also mentioned that the California minimum wage
is hourly and not a salary. Also, you didn't "quote" the minimum
wage. You offered a number and then expected me to find the correct
number.

Someone might also have mentioned that the minimum wage in Calif might
increase after the Nov 2024 election and become a "living wage":
<https://ballotpedia.org/California__Minimum_Wage_Initiative_(2024)>

No need to thank me.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 2:01:29 AM UTC+1, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Lou Holtman <lou.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 11:09:57 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 1:44:53 PM UTC-8, Lou Holtman wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 10:16:02 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 12:54:12 PM UTC-8, Mark Cleary wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 2:44:32 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>> On 12/6/2023 3:31 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 8:08:16 PM UTC+1, Catrike Rider wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 13:38:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 12/6/2023 11:53 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 5:18:11?PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Chain lubrication has a long history on r.b.tech as a "religious issue."
> >>>>>>>>>>> Billions of electrons have been spent over the decades in arguments
> >>>>>>>>>>> defending individual's choices, and disparaging the lubrication choices
> >>>>>>>>>>> of others.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> What's been new in the last ten years or so is well accepted data done
> >>>>>>>>>>> by precise measurements. One example is here:
> >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bikeradar.com/news/friction-facts-publishes-ultrafast-chain-lube-formula/
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The latest I've seen pop up was in the current issue of _Bicycling_
> >>>>>>>>>>> magazine. There's a long article about a guy doing extremely detailed
> >>>>>>>>>>> lab testing of dozens of lubricants under a variety of conditions
> >>>>>>>>>>> (clean, dirty, wet, etc.). He tracks chain wear (or "stretch") but says
> >>>>>>>>>>> it correlates very well with efficiency, as measured in the Friction
> >>>>>>>>>>> Facts lab tests.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Of course, I'm mentioning this because the results of both those tests
> >>>>>>>>>>> confirm what I've been saying for maybe 30 years: that dry wax based
> >>>>>>>>>>> lubes work really, really well. :-) They take the top places in this
> >>>>>>>>>>> guy's rankings, by large margins, giving many times longer chain life.
> >>>>>>>>>>> The article even breaks down the issue of costs (notify Joerg!) telling
> >>>>>>>>>>> how dry wax lubes can save serious amounts of money on chains, cogs and
> >>>>>>>>>>> chainrings.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I've used hot paraffin wax with a bit of oil blended in for decades. I'm
> >>>>>>>>>>> not so much worried about expense or minimizing friction loss.. I just
> >>>>>>>>>>> like that it's easy for me to apply, it lasts a nice long time and it
> >>>>>>>>>>> keeps my bike far cleaner than any wet lube. But it's nice to see even
> >>>>>>>>>>> more confirmation of testing information that first popped up way back
> >>>>>>>>>>> in the late 1970s:
> >>>>>>>>>>> https://flic.kr/p/dkUGq6
> >>>>>>>>>>> https://flic.kr/p/dkULS1
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Oh man, chain lubrication is discussed to death. Anyone with a little sense
> >>>>>>>>>> understands that sand/dirt in the chain is what makes chains
> >>>>>>>>>> wear. Knowing that it is not hard to understand that oil is the
> >>>>>>>>>> dumbest chainlube if you want your chain to last.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> And yet many do not understand!
> >>>>>>>> and many simply disagree. Aint diversity wonderful?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And I don’t mind. Just smile when they mention their chainlife of
> >>>>>>> 2500-3500 km and their trouble of cleaning their oily chain with nasty solvents.
> >>>>>> Right. We're in an age where "I disagree" is acceptable to some even if
> >>>>>> it goes against direct measurements, recorded facts, sworn testimony,
> >>>>>> proven science, etc. When possible, it's best to not bother with such
> >>>>>> people. Logic is wasted on them.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
> >>>>> I use Menards lumber store 3-in-1 oil on my chain. The oil say says
> >>>>> it is for less than 3/4 HP motors and I don't put that out for any
> >>>>> length of time. Using this ultra cheap big box store lube I get about
> >>>>> 5-6000 miles on a chain. Wipe it down with OMS about every 400 miles
> >>>>> and re-lube. Occassionally if really cleaning the drive train I take
> >>>>> the chain off and dunk in jar of OMS and re-attach. No wax for me thank you
> >>>>> Deacon Mark
> >>>> People that use light weight cheap oil and oil it down well and often
> >>>> find that their chains and rings have as good a life as Lou's wax or
> >>>> Frank's blind belief in science he doesn't understand because every case is different.
> >>>>
> >>>> I use wax for one reason - the chain and cogs stay cleaner to the eye.
> >>> Well if your chain and cogs stay cleaner what does that mean? I cleaned
> >>> my crossbike after the very muddy ride of last Sunday with just water
> >>> (hosed it of at the carwash) and dried bike and chain and relubed my
> >>> chain. Whole proces took me 30 minutes in total spread over a couple of
> >>> intervals. Bike is still on the workstand I can post a picture of the relubed chain.
> >>>
> >>> Lou
> >> You and I prefer wax. Others ride in different conditions and may not
> >> want to invest in an ultrasonic cleaner and a hot pot to melt the wax
> >> in. Also there is the matter of workspace. People can easily put a bike
> >> through a commercial carwash, blow dry it and dump a load of cheap light
> >> oil on it then and before every ride and get the same result. We are
> >> rather special cases and showing what bike nerds we are is probably
> >> avoidable. And most people do not want getting their bike dirty.
> >
> > I only give my opinion what to use when asked. I don’t take my chain off
> > or put it in a ultra sonic cleaner or in a hot pot. I think too that that
> > us excessive. My chains stay on the bike, only cleaned with water and
> > soap and I use ready to use lube that I can buy, Squirt in my case.
> >
> > Lou
> >
> I do use Squirt though on very wet MTB rides it’s not able to stick to, ie
> gets washed out.
>
> Works well on the commute and Gravel bike both of which don’t get subjected
> to bog snorkelling type of use.
>
> I do still use squirt on the MTB but if I know it’s going to be really wet
> I’ll use an oil for that ride.
>

You can not use Squirt on an oily/greasy chain. You have to degrease a new chain first. After that only use Squirt and no oil anymore. It is in the instructions of Squirt.

Lou

On Wed, 06 Dec 2023 19:37:49 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 10:09:55 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 06 Dec 2023 18:37:17 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 08:45:54 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> In California minimum salary is $20.50/hour
>>>
>>>California minimum wage, after Jan 1, 2024, will be $16 per hr.
>>><https://www.dir.ca.gov/DIRNews/2023/2023-66.html>
>>>Some cities and counties in California have a local minimum wage that
>>>is higher than the state rate.
>>
>>Yes, but had I quoted the minimum in Eastovershoe,CA someone would
>>have said, no, no, no, the state rate is different :-)
>
>Nope. They would have also mentioned that the California minimum wage
>is hourly and not a salary. Also, you didn't "quote" the minimum
>wage. You offered a number and then expected me to find the correct
>number.
>
>Someone might also have mentioned that the minimum wage in Calif might
>increase after the Nov 2024 election and become a "living wage":
><https://ballotpedia.org/California__Minimum_Wage_Initiative_(2024)>
>
>No need to thank me.

Well :-) Many working people consider their hourly earnings as their
salary :-) although granted they multiply by 8 and then by 5, 5-1/2, 6
or even 7 :-)

As for "living wage" it doesn't work that a way. They raise your
salary, you get more money and your boss has to charge more for your
work to make a profit so because salaries have increased costs also go
up.

And 'round and 'round it goes and where it stops nobody knows...
--
Cheers,

John B.