On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 18:03:59 -0500, Catrike Rider
<soloman@drafting.not> wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 05:27:35 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 08:46:05 -0500, Catrike Rider
>><soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 17:58:35 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 05:42:54 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>><soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 17:21:57 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 00:33:27 -0800 (PST), Lou Holtman
>>>>>><lou.holtman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 2:46:01?AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 14:46:53 -0800 (PST), 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
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I don't know. I think a valid option is to lube the shit out of rthe chain to reduce friction and not bothered with cleaning, keep an eye on the chainwear and replace the chain when necessary if you want the cassette to last. If not just wait until the chain skips on the infrequent used cogs and replace chain and cassette. I use that regime on my utility bike with an open chainguard to protect my trousers. Most people however want to clean their chain from time to time. In that case an oily chain is a PIA and in my opinion useless.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Lou
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I probably should be a bit more explicit. I was referring to the
>>>>>>battles (verbal if nothing else) over the proper way to care for a
>>>>>>chain. After all you just splurged 5,6 hundred dollars, or more, on
>>>>>>this eleventeen speed, plastic thing, with the electric transmission
>>>>>>and the hydraulic brakes . Is $17 a couple of times a year something
>>>>>>to worry about :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Regarding arguments(some call them discussions) about trivial issues,
>>>>>Perhaps we (RBT) should have a serious "discussion" about what is the
>>>>>best handlebar tape.
>>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps ??someone?? could post some personal or "friend" related
>>>>>anecdotes about their problems or solutions, or maybe some ??facts??
>>>>>about being interviewed about their handlebar tape related issues.
>>>>
>>>>https://tinyurl.com/2avbjbt8
>>>>Well. there is absolutely nothing to discuss here as the BEST bar tape
>>>>is sown leather and a bargain too, only $54, marked down from $68 :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>>I trust there is instruction available for learning how to sew them
>>>on.
>>OF COURSE... Didn't you know? there is a You Tube for
>>Everything :-)
>
>Shouldn't there be a classroom with a blackboard and an instructor?
>
>Do you get a pretty piece of paper to frame and hang on the wall?

On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 17:20:28 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 05:44:09 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Of course you are correct. I remember reading that the steel used in
>>the rebuilding, repairing, whatever, of some bridge in San Francisco
>>was done with steel imported from China as "there was no steel mill
>>in the U.S. capable of providing the material within the time limits
>>to meet the construction schedule".
>
>Good, fast, cheap. Pick any two.
>Fast and cheap means it's not going to be very good.
>
>"The Made-in-China Bay Bridge Continues to Cost California"
><https://www.americanmanufacturing.org/blog/the-made-in-china-bay-bridge-continues-to-cost-california/>
>
>"Dang: The Chinese-Made Bay Bridge Continues to Fall Apart"
><https://www.americanmanufacturing.org/blog/dang-the-chinese-made-bay-bridge-continues-to-fall-apart/>
>
>In China, poor construction and/or poor quality materials are called
>"Tofu Dreg" construction projects:
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tofu-dreg_project>
>
>Some videos on Tofu Dreg construction projects:
><https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=tofu+dregs>
>
>When I hire a contractor to build something, I like to see what
>they've previously built and ask the owners for their opinions. I
>don't see how the Calif Dept of Transportation could have ignored the
>constructions problems in China and then wondered why we're having
>similar problems in the US.

Every time I read about something like the bridge building and all the
problems I'm reminded of how an international oil company manages
their project.

The company I worked for had two oil production barges in the Java sea
and was considering building more and thinking it might be cheaper in
Indonesia so we visited a yard that was building off shore towers.

There were two "paint inspectors" there, Australian guys, and we got
to talking about quality control. They told me that every can of paint
- to comes in something like 5 gallon lots, was sampled and the sample
sent to Singapore to be analyzed before that can was used. Each coat
of paint was checked for thickness after drying, and even the sand
used to sand blast the towers before painting was tested - it seems
that if you use "beach sand" it is likely to contain salt which may
cause poor paint adhesion.

From what I read the S.F. bridge builders didn't do that :-(
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 10:03:48 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 12:06:05 -0500, Catrike Rider
><soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 11:43:19 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 12/7/2023 5:47 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>> I read all the do gooders whining about "Oh those poor folks that
>>>> can't find a job". And there are, I read, 8 million undocumented
>>>> immigrants working in the U.S. But there ain't no jobs!
>>>
>>>Where are you reading about people who can't find jobs? The unemployment
>>>rate is lower than it's been for the past 30 years, maybe longer.
>>
>>..mostly because many people are not looking for jobs. The so called
>>"unemployment rate" is the percentage of people looking for jobs.
>
>Re: how the rate is determined see
>https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
>
>As of November 2023 there were 1.8 million people drawing unemployment
>and, as I wrote some 8 million illegal workers employed, in the U.S.
>
>But regardless of the present rate versus previous rates you still
>have nearly 2 million people sucking on the government tit in an
>society where there are 8 million illegal workers.

Examples of our stupid dishonest government are everywhere, along
with, of course, the stupid, dishonest voters who elect and put up
with them.

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 10:50:22 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 18:03:59 -0500, Catrike Rider
><soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 05:27:35 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 08:46:05 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>><soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 17:58:35 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 05:42:54 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>><soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 17:21:57 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 00:33:27 -0800 (PST), Lou Holtman
>>>>>>><lou.holtman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 2:46:01?AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 14:46:53 -0800 (PST), 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
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I don't know. I think a valid option is to lube the shit out of rthe chain to reduce friction and not bothered with cleaning, keep an eye on the chainwear and replace the chain when necessary if you want the cassette to last. If not just wait until the chain skips on the infrequent used cogs and replace chain and cassette. I use that regime on my utility bike with an open chainguard to protect my trousers. Most people however want to clean their chain from time to time. In that case an oily chain is a PIA and in my opinion useless.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Lou
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I probably should be a bit more explicit. I was referring to the
>>>>>>>battles (verbal if nothing else) over the proper way to care for a
>>>>>>>chain. After all you just splurged 5,6 hundred dollars, or more, on
>>>>>>>this eleventeen speed, plastic thing, with the electric transmission
>>>>>>>and the hydraulic brakes . Is $17 a couple of times a year something
>>>>>>>to worry about :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Regarding arguments(some call them discussions) about trivial issues,
>>>>>>Perhaps we (RBT) should have a serious "discussion" about what is the
>>>>>>best handlebar tape.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Perhaps ??someone?? could post some personal or "friend" related
>>>>>>anecdotes about their problems or solutions, or maybe some ??facts??
>>>>>>about being interviewed about their handlebar tape related issues.
>>>>>
>>>>>https://tinyurl.com/2avbjbt8
>>>>>Well. there is absolutely nothing to discuss here as the BEST bar tape
>>>>>is sown leather and a bargain too, only $54, marked down from $68 :-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I trust there is instruction available for learning how to sew them
>>>>on.
>>>OF COURSE... Didn't you know? there is a You Tube for
>>>Everything :-)
>>
>>Shouldn't there be a classroom with a blackboard and an instructor?
>>
>>Do you get a pretty piece of paper to frame and hang on the wall?
>
>I'm sure there is a classroom somewhere.
>after all
>Cornell University, students have the opportunity learn about tree
>climbing! The course includes learning how to climb trees, and basic
>skills of tree hazard assessment, line placement, ascending,
>descending, and moving around in the canopy.
>And...
>At the Fashion Institute of Technology in New York City, you can take
>classes in designing clothes for pets!
>
>But no diploma! After all isn't all the chaps gathering around,
>pointing fingers and saying, "Oh Look! Real leather handlebar covers!"
>enough of an ego trip? :-)

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 04:36:18 -0500, Catrike Rider
<soloman@drafting.not> wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 10:50:22 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 18:03:59 -0500, Catrike Rider
>><soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 05:27:35 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 08:46:05 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>><soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 17:58:35 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 05:42:54 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>><soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 17:21:57 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 00:33:27 -0800 (PST), Lou Holtman
>>>>>>>><lou.holtman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 2:46:01?AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 14:46:53 -0800 (PST), 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
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I don't know. I think a valid option is to lube the shit out of rthe chain to reduce friction and not bothered with cleaning, keep an eye on the chainwear and replace the chain when necessary if you want the cassette to last. If not just wait until the chain skips on the infrequent used cogs and replace chain and cassette. I use that regime on my utility bike with an open chainguard to protect my trousers. Most people however want to clean their chain from time to time. In that case an oily chain is a PIA and in my opinion useless.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Lou
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I probably should be a bit more explicit. I was referring to the
>>>>>>>>battles (verbal if nothing else) over the proper way to care for a
>>>>>>>>chain. After all you just splurged 5,6 hundred dollars, or more, on
>>>>>>>>this eleventeen speed, plastic thing, with the electric transmission
>>>>>>>>and the hydraulic brakes . Is $17 a couple of times a year something
>>>>>>>>to worry about :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Regarding arguments(some call them discussions) about trivial issues,
>>>>>>>Perhaps we (RBT) should have a serious "discussion" about what is the
>>>>>>>best handlebar tape.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Perhaps ??someone?? could post some personal or "friend" related
>>>>>>>anecdotes about their problems or solutions, or maybe some ??facts??
>>>>>>>about being interviewed about their handlebar tape related issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>https://tinyurl.com/2avbjbt8
>>>>>>Well. there is absolutely nothing to discuss here as the BEST bar tape
>>>>>>is sown leather and a bargain too, only $54, marked down from $68 :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I trust there is instruction available for learning how to sew them
>>>>>on.
>>>>OF COURSE... Didn't you know? there is a You Tube for
>>>>Everything :-)
>>>
>>>Shouldn't there be a classroom with a blackboard and an instructor?
>>>
>>>Do you get a pretty piece of paper to frame and hang on the wall?
>>
>>I'm sure there is a classroom somewhere.
>>after all
>>Cornell University, students have the opportunity learn about tree
>>climbing! The course includes learning how to climb trees, and basic
>>skills of tree hazard assessment, line placement, ascending,
>>descending, and moving around in the canopy.
>>And...
>>At the Fashion Institute of Technology in New York City, you can take
>>classes in designing clothes for pets!
>>
>>But no diploma! After all isn't all the chaps gathering around,
>>pointing fingers and saying, "Oh Look! Real leather handlebar covers!"
>>enough of an ego trip? :-)
>
>...and then there is "Gender Studies" for confused people intent on
>becoming even more confused.

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 04:30:48 -0500, Catrike Rider
<soloman@drafting.not> wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 10:03:48 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 12:06:05 -0500, Catrike Rider
>><soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 11:43:19 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 12/7/2023 5:47 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> I read all the do gooders whining about "Oh those poor folks that
>>>>> can't find a job". And there are, I read, 8 million undocumented
>>>>> immigrants working in the U.S. But there ain't no jobs!
>>>>
>>>>Where are you reading about people who can't find jobs? The unemployment
>>>>rate is lower than it's been for the past 30 years, maybe longer.
>>>
>>>..mostly because many people are not looking for jobs. The so called
>>>"unemployment rate" is the percentage of people looking for jobs.
>>
>>Re: how the rate is determined see
>>https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
>>
>>As of November 2023 there were 1.8 million people drawing unemployment
>>and, as I wrote some 8 million illegal workers employed, in the U.S.
>>
>>But regardless of the present rate versus previous rates you still
>>have nearly 2 million people sucking on the government tit in an
>>society where there are 8 million illegal workers.
>
>Examples of our stupid dishonest government are everywhere, along
>with, of course, the stupid, dishonest voters who elect and put up
>with them.

But, the best way to get elected in a democratic country is to start
your speeches with "If Elected I will give you...". The yellow hair
guy tried, "Make America Strong..." and that didn't work at all :-(

--
Cheers,

John B.

Am 08.12.2023 um 10:57 schrieb John B.:
> On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 04:36:18 -0500, Catrike Rider
> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 10:50:22 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 18:03:59 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 05:27:35 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 08:46:05 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 17:58:35 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 05:42:54 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 17:21:57 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 00:33:27 -0800 (PST), Lou Holtman
>>>>>>>>> <lou.holtman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 2:46:01?AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 14:46:53 -0800 (PST), 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
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't know. I think a valid option is to lube the shit out of rthe chain to reduce friction and not bothered with cleaning, keep an eye on the chainwear and replace the chain when necessary if you want the cassette to last. If not just wait until the chain skips on the infrequent used cogs and replace chain and cassette. I use that regime on my utility bike with an open chainguard to protect my trousers. Most people however want to clean their chain from time to time. In that case an oily chain is a PIA and in my opinion useless.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Lou
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I probably should be a bit more explicit. I was referring to the
>>>>>>>>> battles (verbal if nothing else) over the proper way to care for a
>>>>>>>>> chain. After all you just splurged 5,6 hundred dollars, or more, on
>>>>>>>>> this eleventeen speed, plastic thing, with the electric transmission
>>>>>>>>> and the hydraulic brakes . Is $17 a couple of times a year something
>>>>>>>>> to worry about :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regarding arguments(some call them discussions) about trivial issues,
>>>>>>>> Perhaps we (RBT) should have a serious "discussion" about what is the
>>>>>>>> best handlebar tape.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Perhaps ??someone?? could post some personal or "friend" related
>>>>>>>> anecdotes about their problems or solutions, or maybe some ??facts??
>>>>>>>> about being interviewed about their handlebar tape related issues.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/2avbjbt8
>>>>>>> Well. there is absolutely nothing to discuss here as the BEST bar tape
>>>>>>> is sown leather and a bargain too, only $54, marked down from $68 :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I trust there is instruction available for learning how to sew them
>>>>>> on.
>>>>> OF COURSE... Didn't you know? there is a You Tube for
>>>>> Everything :-)
>>>>
>>>> Shouldn't there be a classroom with a blackboard and an instructor?
>>>>
>>>> Do you get a pretty piece of paper to frame and hang on the wall?
>>>
>>> I'm sure there is a classroom somewhere.
>>> after all
>>> Cornell University, students have the opportunity learn about tree
>>> climbing! The course includes learning how to climb trees, and basic
>>> skills of tree hazard assessment, line placement, ascending,
>>> descending, and moving around in the canopy.
>>> And...
>>> At the Fashion Institute of Technology in New York City, you can take
>>> classes in designing clothes for pets!
>>>
>>> But no diploma! After all isn't all the chaps gathering around,
>>> pointing fingers and saying, "Oh Look! Real leather handlebar covers!"
>>> enough of an ego trip? :-)
>>
>> ...and then there is "Gender Studies" for confused people intent on
>> becoming even more confused.
>
> Well Yes. I suppose that some folks have to study to determine the
> difference between male and female (dogs can figure it out without
> classes).

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 12:29:43 +0100, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de>
wrote:

>Am 08.12.2023 um 10:57 schrieb John B.:
>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 04:36:18 -0500, Catrike Rider
>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 10:50:22 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 18:03:59 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 05:27:35 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 08:46:05 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 17:58:35 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 05:42:54 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 17:21:57 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 00:33:27 -0800 (PST), Lou Holtman
>>>>>>>>>> <lou.holtman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 2:46:01?AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 14:46:53 -0800 (PST), 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
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know. I think a valid option is to lube the shit out of rthe chain to reduce friction and not bothered with cleaning, keep an eye on the chainwear and replace the chain when necessary if you want the cassette to last. If not just wait until the chain skips on the infrequent used cogs and replace chain and cassette. I use that regime on my utility bike with an open chainguard to protect my trousers. Most people however want to clean their chain from time to time. In that case an oily chain is a PIA and in my opinion useless.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Lou
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I probably should be a bit more explicit. I was referring to the
>>>>>>>>>> battles (verbal if nothing else) over the proper way to care for a
>>>>>>>>>> chain. After all you just splurged 5,6 hundred dollars, or more, on
>>>>>>>>>> this eleventeen speed, plastic thing, with the electric transmission
>>>>>>>>>> and the hydraulic brakes . Is $17 a couple of times a year something
>>>>>>>>>> to worry about :-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regarding arguments(some call them discussions) about trivial issues,
>>>>>>>>> Perhaps we (RBT) should have a serious "discussion" about what is the
>>>>>>>>> best handlebar tape.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Perhaps ??someone?? could post some personal or "friend" related
>>>>>>>>> anecdotes about their problems or solutions, or maybe some ??facts??
>>>>>>>>> about being interviewed about their handlebar tape related issues.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/2avbjbt8
>>>>>>>> Well. there is absolutely nothing to discuss here as the BEST bar tape
>>>>>>>> is sown leather and a bargain too, only $54, marked down from $68 :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I trust there is instruction available for learning how to sew them
>>>>>>> on.
>>>>>> OF COURSE... Didn't you know? there is a You Tube for
>>>>>> Everything :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Shouldn't there be a classroom with a blackboard and an instructor?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you get a pretty piece of paper to frame and hang on the wall?
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure there is a classroom somewhere.
>>>> after all
>>>> Cornell University, students have the opportunity learn about tree
>>>> climbing! The course includes learning how to climb trees, and basic
>>>> skills of tree hazard assessment, line placement, ascending,
>>>> descending, and moving around in the canopy.
>>>> And...
>>>> At the Fashion Institute of Technology in New York City, you can take
>>>> classes in designing clothes for pets!
>>>>
>>>> But no diploma! After all isn't all the chaps gathering around,
>>>> pointing fingers and saying, "Oh Look! Real leather handlebar covers!"
>>>> enough of an ego trip? :-)
>>>
>>> ...and then there is "Gender Studies" for confused people intent on
>>> becoming even more confused.
>>
>> Well Yes. I suppose that some folks have to study to determine the
>> difference between male and female (dogs can figure it out without
>> classes).
>
>Well Yes, and some people might have to take language training to
>understand the difference between 'Sex' and 'Gender'.

Am 08.12.2023 um 12:51 schrieb Catrike Rider:
> On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 12:29:43 +0100, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de>
> wrote:
>
>> Am 08.12.2023 um 10:57 schrieb John B.:
>>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 04:36:18 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 10:50:22 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 18:03:59 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 05:27:35 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 08:46:05 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 17:58:35 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 05:42:54 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 17:21:57 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 00:33:27 -0800 (PST), Lou Holtman
>>>>>>>>>>> <lou.holtman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 2:46:01?AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 14:46:53 -0800 (PST), 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know. I think a valid option is to lube the shit out of rthe chain to reduce friction and not bothered with cleaning, keep an eye on the chainwear and replace the chain when necessary if you want the cassette to last. If not just wait until the chain skips on the infrequent used cogs and replace chain and cassette. I use that regime on my utility bike with an open chainguard to protect my trousers. Most people however want to clean their chain from time to time. In that case an oily chain is a PIA and in my opinion useless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Lou
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I probably should be a bit more explicit. I was referring to the
>>>>>>>>>>> battles (verbal if nothing else) over the proper way to care for a
>>>>>>>>>>> chain. After all you just splurged 5,6 hundred dollars, or more, on
>>>>>>>>>>> this eleventeen speed, plastic thing, with the electric transmission
>>>>>>>>>>> and the hydraulic brakes . Is $17 a couple of times a year something
>>>>>>>>>>> to worry about :-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regarding arguments(some call them discussions) about trivial issues,
>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps we (RBT) should have a serious "discussion" about what is the
>>>>>>>>>> best handlebar tape.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps ??someone?? could post some personal or "friend" related
>>>>>>>>>> anecdotes about their problems or solutions, or maybe some ??facts??
>>>>>>>>>> about being interviewed about their handlebar tape related issues.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/2avbjbt8
>>>>>>>>> Well. there is absolutely nothing to discuss here as the BEST bar tape
>>>>>>>>> is sown leather and a bargain too, only $54, marked down from $68 :-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I trust there is instruction available for learning how to sew them
>>>>>>>> on.
>>>>>>> OF COURSE... Didn't you know? there is a You Tube for
>>>>>>> Everything :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shouldn't there be a classroom with a blackboard and an instructor?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you get a pretty piece of paper to frame and hang on the wall?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure there is a classroom somewhere.
>>>>> after all
>>>>> Cornell University, students have the opportunity learn about tree
>>>>> climbing! The course includes learning how to climb trees, and basic
>>>>> skills of tree hazard assessment, line placement, ascending,
>>>>> descending, and moving around in the canopy.
>>>>> And...
>>>>> At the Fashion Institute of Technology in New York City, you can take
>>>>> classes in designing clothes for pets!
>>>>>
>>>>> But no diploma! After all isn't all the chaps gathering around,
>>>>> pointing fingers and saying, "Oh Look! Real leather handlebar covers!"
>>>>> enough of an ego trip? :-)
>>>>
>>>> ...and then there is "Gender Studies" for confused people intent on
>>>> becoming even more confused.
>>>
>>> Well Yes. I suppose that some folks have to study to determine the
>>> difference between male and female (dogs can figure it out without
>>> classes).
>>
>> Well Yes, and some people might have to take language training to
>> understand the difference between 'Sex' and 'Gender'.
>
> There is no difference.

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 14:11:31 +0100, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de>
wrote:

>Am 08.12.2023 um 12:51 schrieb Catrike Rider:
>> On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 12:29:43 +0100, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 08.12.2023 um 10:57 schrieb John B.:
>>>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 04:36:18 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 10:50:22 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 18:03:59 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 05:27:35 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 08:46:05 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 17:58:35 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 05:42:54 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 17:21:57 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 00:33:27 -0800 (PST), Lou Holtman
>>>>>>>>>>>> <lou.holtman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 2:46:01?AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 14:46:53 -0800 (PST), 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know. I think a valid option is to lube the shit out of rthe chain to reduce friction and not bothered with cleaning, keep an eye on the chainwear and replace the chain when necessary if you want the cassette to last. If not just wait until the chain skips on the infrequent used cogs and replace chain and cassette. I use that regime on my utility bike with an open chainguard to protect my trousers. Most people however want to clean their chain from time to time. In that case an oily chain is a PIA and in my opinion useless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lou
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I probably should be a bit more explicit. I was referring to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> battles (verbal if nothing else) over the proper way to care for a
>>>>>>>>>>>> chain. After all you just splurged 5,6 hundred dollars, or more, on
>>>>>>>>>>>> this eleventeen speed, plastic thing, with the electric transmission
>>>>>>>>>>>> and the hydraulic brakes . Is $17 a couple of times a year something
>>>>>>>>>>>> to worry about :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding arguments(some call them discussions) about trivial issues,
>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps we (RBT) should have a serious "discussion" about what is the
>>>>>>>>>>> best handlebar tape.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps ??someone?? could post some personal or "friend" related
>>>>>>>>>>> anecdotes about their problems or solutions, or maybe some ??facts??
>>>>>>>>>>> about being interviewed about their handlebar tape related issues.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/2avbjbt8
>>>>>>>>>> Well. there is absolutely nothing to discuss here as the BEST bar tape
>>>>>>>>>> is sown leather and a bargain too, only $54, marked down from $68 :-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I trust there is instruction available for learning how to sew them
>>>>>>>>> on.
>>>>>>>> OF COURSE... Didn't you know? there is a You Tube for
>>>>>>>> Everything :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Shouldn't there be a classroom with a blackboard and an instructor?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you get a pretty piece of paper to frame and hang on the wall?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sure there is a classroom somewhere.
>>>>>> after all
>>>>>> Cornell University, students have the opportunity learn about tree
>>>>>> climbing! The course includes learning how to climb trees, and basic
>>>>>> skills of tree hazard assessment, line placement, ascending,
>>>>>> descending, and moving around in the canopy.
>>>>>> And...
>>>>>> At the Fashion Institute of Technology in New York City, you can take
>>>>>> classes in designing clothes for pets!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But no diploma! After all isn't all the chaps gathering around,
>>>>>> pointing fingers and saying, "Oh Look! Real leather handlebar covers!"
>>>>>> enough of an ego trip? :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> ...and then there is "Gender Studies" for confused people intent on
>>>>> becoming even more confused.
>>>>
>>>> Well Yes. I suppose that some folks have to study to determine the
>>>> difference between male and female (dogs can figure it out without
>>>> classes).
>>>
>>> Well Yes, and some people might have to take language training to
>>> understand the difference between 'Sex' and 'Gender'.
>>
>> There is no difference.
>
>You might benefit from language training then. You might learn the
>lingistic difference between 'Sex' (biological) and 'gender' (behavioural)
>
><https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender>
>
>

Am 08.12.2023 um 14:30 schrieb Catrike Rider:
> On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 14:11:31 +0100, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de>
> wrote:
>
>> Am 08.12.2023 um 12:51 schrieb Catrike Rider:
>>> On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 12:29:43 +0100, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 08.12.2023 um 10:57 schrieb John B.:
>>>>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 04:36:18 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 10:50:22 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 18:03:59 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 05:27:35 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 08:46:05 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 17:58:35 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 05:42:54 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 17:21:57 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 00:33:27 -0800 (PST), Lou Holtman
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <lou.holtman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 2:46:01?AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 14:46:53 -0800 (PST), 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know. I think a valid option is to lube the shit out of rthe chain to reduce friction and not bothered with cleaning, keep an eye on the chainwear and replace the chain when necessary if you want the cassette to last. If not just wait until the chain skips on the infrequent used cogs and replace chain and cassette. I use that regime on my utility bike with an open chainguard to protect my trousers. Most people however want to clean their chain from time to time. In that case an oily chain is a PIA and in my opinion useless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lou
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I probably should be a bit more explicit. I was referring to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> battles (verbal if nothing else) over the proper way to care for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> chain. After all you just splurged 5,6 hundred dollars, or more, on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this eleventeen speed, plastic thing, with the electric transmission
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the hydraulic brakes . Is $17 a couple of times a year something
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to worry about :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding arguments(some call them discussions) about trivial issues,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps we (RBT) should have a serious "discussion" about what is the
>>>>>>>>>>>> best handlebar tape.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps ??someone?? could post some personal or "friend" related
>>>>>>>>>>>> anecdotes about their problems or solutions, or maybe some ??facts??
>>>>>>>>>>>> about being interviewed about their handlebar tape related issues.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/2avbjbt8
>>>>>>>>>>> Well. there is absolutely nothing to discuss here as the BEST bar tape
>>>>>>>>>>> is sown leather and a bargain too, only $54, marked down from $68 :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I trust there is instruction available for learning how to sew them
>>>>>>>>>> on.
>>>>>>>>> OF COURSE... Didn't you know? there is a You Tube for
>>>>>>>>> Everything :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Shouldn't there be a classroom with a blackboard and an instructor?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you get a pretty piece of paper to frame and hang on the wall?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm sure there is a classroom somewhere.
>>>>>>> after all
>>>>>>> Cornell University, students have the opportunity learn about tree
>>>>>>> climbing! The course includes learning how to climb trees, and basic
>>>>>>> skills of tree hazard assessment, line placement, ascending,
>>>>>>> descending, and moving around in the canopy.
>>>>>>> And...
>>>>>>> At the Fashion Institute of Technology in New York City, you can take
>>>>>>> classes in designing clothes for pets!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But no diploma! After all isn't all the chaps gathering around,
>>>>>>> pointing fingers and saying, "Oh Look! Real leather handlebar covers!"
>>>>>>> enough of an ego trip? :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...and then there is "Gender Studies" for confused people intent on
>>>>>> becoming even more confused.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well Yes. I suppose that some folks have to study to determine the
>>>>> difference between male and female (dogs can figure it out without
>>>>> classes).
>>>>
>>>> Well Yes, and some people might have to take language training to
>>>> understand the difference between 'Sex' and 'Gender'.
>>>
>>> There is no difference.
>>
>> You might benefit from language training then. You might learn the
>> lingistic difference between 'Sex' (biological) and 'gender' (behavioural)
>>
>> <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender>
>
> "Usage of sex and gender is by no means settled."
> --from your cite

On 12/7/2023 9:03 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 12:06:05 -0500, Catrike Rider
> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 11:43:19 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/7/2023 5:47 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>> I read all the do gooders whining about "Oh those poor folks that
>>>> can't find a job". And there are, I read, 8 million undocumented
>>>> immigrants working in the U.S. But there ain't no jobs!
>>>
>>> Where are you reading about people who can't find jobs? The unemployment
>>> rate is lower than it's been for the past 30 years, maybe longer.
>>
>> ..mostly because many people are not looking for jobs. The so called
>> "unemployment rate" is the percentage of people looking for jobs.
>
> Re: how the rate is determined see
> https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
>
> As of November 2023 there were 1.8 million people drawing unemployment
> and, as I wrote some 8 million illegal workers employed, in the U.S.
>
> But regardless of the present rate versus previous rates you still
> have nearly 2 million people sucking on the government tit in an
> society where there are 8 million illegal workers.

"nearly 2 million people sucking on the government tit"

That's just the UC parasites.
It's over 50% now. Utterly unsustainable.

--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 12/7/2023 11:32 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 17:20:28 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 05:44:09 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Of course you are correct. I remember reading that the steel used in
>>> the rebuilding, repairing, whatever, of some bridge in San Francisco
>>> was done with steel imported from China as "there was no steel mill
>>> in the U.S. capable of providing the material within the time limits
>>> to meet the construction schedule".
>>
>> Good, fast, cheap. Pick any two.
>> Fast and cheap means it's not going to be very good.
>>
>> "The Made-in-China Bay Bridge Continues to Cost California"
>> <https://www.americanmanufacturing.org/blog/the-made-in-china-bay-bridge-continues-to-cost-california/>
>>
>> "Dang: The Chinese-Made Bay Bridge Continues to Fall Apart"
>> <https://www.americanmanufacturing.org/blog/dang-the-chinese-made-bay-bridge-continues-to-fall-apart/>
>>
>> In China, poor construction and/or poor quality materials are called
>> "Tofu Dreg" construction projects:
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tofu-dreg_project>
>>
>> Some videos on Tofu Dreg construction projects:
>> <https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=tofu+dregs>
>>
>> When I hire a contractor to build something, I like to see what
>> they've previously built and ask the owners for their opinions. I
>> don't see how the Calif Dept of Transportation could have ignored the
>> constructions problems in China and then wondered why we're having
>> similar problems in the US.
>
> Every time I read about something like the bridge building and all the
> problems I'm reminded of how an international oil company manages
> their project.
>
> The company I worked for had two oil production barges in the Java sea
> and was considering building more and thinking it might be cheaper in
> Indonesia so we visited a yard that was building off shore towers.
>
> There were two "paint inspectors" there, Australian guys, and we got
> to talking about quality control. They told me that every can of paint
> - to comes in something like 5 gallon lots, was sampled and the sample
> sent to Singapore to be analyzed before that can was used. Each coat
> of paint was checked for thickness after drying, and even the sand
> used to sand blast the towers before painting was tested - it seems
> that if you use "beach sand" it is likely to contain salt which may
> cause poor paint adhesion.
>
> From what I read the S.F. bridge builders didn't do that :-(

Hence the popular expression, "Close enough for government
work" which describes things of unacceptable quality otherwise.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 15:07:57 +0100, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de>
wrote:

>Am 08.12.2023 um 14:30 schrieb Catrike Rider:
>> On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 14:11:31 +0100, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 08.12.2023 um 12:51 schrieb Catrike Rider:
>>>> On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 12:29:43 +0100, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Am 08.12.2023 um 10:57 schrieb John B.:
>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 04:36:18 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 10:50:22 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 18:03:59 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 05:27:35 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 08:46:05 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 17:58:35 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 05:42:54 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 17:21:57 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 00:33:27 -0800 (PST), Lou Holtman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <lou.holtman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 2:46:01?AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 14:46:53 -0800 (PST), 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know. I think a valid option is to lube the shit out of rthe chain to reduce friction and not bothered with cleaning, keep an eye on the chainwear and replace the chain when necessary if you want the cassette to last. If not just wait until the chain skips on the infrequent used cogs and replace chain and cassette. I use that regime on my utility bike with an open chainguard to protect my trousers. Most people however want to clean their chain from time to time. In that case an oily chain is a PIA and in my opinion useless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lou
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I probably should be a bit more explicit. I was referring to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> battles (verbal if nothing else) over the proper way to care for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chain. After all you just splurged 5,6 hundred dollars, or more, on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this eleventeen speed, plastic thing, with the electric transmission
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the hydraulic brakes . Is $17 a couple of times a year something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to worry about :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding arguments(some call them discussions) about trivial issues,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps we (RBT) should have a serious "discussion" about what is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> best handlebar tape.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps ??someone?? could post some personal or "friend" related
>>>>>>>>>>>>> anecdotes about their problems or solutions, or maybe some ??facts??
>>>>>>>>>>>>> about being interviewed about their handlebar tape related issues.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/2avbjbt8
>>>>>>>>>>>> Well. there is absolutely nothing to discuss here as the BEST bar tape
>>>>>>>>>>>> is sown leather and a bargain too, only $54, marked down from $68 :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I trust there is instruction available for learning how to sew them
>>>>>>>>>>> on.
>>>>>>>>>> OF COURSE... Didn't you know? there is a You Tube for
>>>>>>>>>> Everything :-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Shouldn't there be a classroom with a blackboard and an instructor?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you get a pretty piece of paper to frame and hang on the wall?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm sure there is a classroom somewhere.
>>>>>>>> after all
>>>>>>>> Cornell University, students have the opportunity learn about tree
>>>>>>>> climbing! The course includes learning how to climb trees, and basic
>>>>>>>> skills of tree hazard assessment, line placement, ascending,
>>>>>>>> descending, and moving around in the canopy.
>>>>>>>> And...
>>>>>>>> At the Fashion Institute of Technology in New York City, you can take
>>>>>>>> classes in designing clothes for pets!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But no diploma! After all isn't all the chaps gathering around,
>>>>>>>> pointing fingers and saying, "Oh Look! Real leather handlebar covers!"
>>>>>>>> enough of an ego trip? :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...and then there is "Gender Studies" for confused people intent on
>>>>>>> becoming even more confused.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well Yes. I suppose that some folks have to study to determine the
>>>>>> difference between male and female (dogs can figure it out without
>>>>>> classes).
>>>>>
>>>>> Well Yes, and some people might have to take language training to
>>>>> understand the difference between 'Sex' and 'Gender'.
>>>>
>>>> There is no difference.
>>>
>>> You might benefit from language training then. You might learn the
>>> lingistic difference between 'Sex' (biological) and 'gender' (behavioural)
>>>
>>> <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender>
>>
>> "Usage of sex and gender is by no means settled."
>> --from your cite
>
>Agreed but 'not settled' is semantically different from 'identical'.

On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 1:34:39 AM UTC-8, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 10:03:48 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 12:06:05 -0500, Catrike Rider
> ><sol...@drafting.not> wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 11:43:19 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >><frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 12/7/2023 5:47 AM, John B. wrote:
> >>>> I read all the do gooders whining about "Oh those poor folks that
> >>>> can't find a job". And there are, I read, 8 million undocumented
> >>>> immigrants working in the U.S. But there ain't no jobs!
> >>>
> >>>Where are you reading about people who can't find jobs? The unemployment
> >>>rate is lower than it's been for the past 30 years, maybe longer.
> >>
> >>..mostly because many people are not looking for jobs. The so called
> >>"unemployment rate" is the percentage of people looking for jobs.
> >
> >Re: how the rate is determined see
> >https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
> >
> >As of November 2023 there were 1.8 million people drawing unemployment
> >and, as I wrote some 8 million illegal workers employed, in the U.S.
> >
> >But regardless of the present rate versus previous rates you still
> >have nearly 2 million people sucking on the government tit in an
> >society where there are 8 million illegal workers.
> Examples of our stupid dishonest government are everywhere, along
> with, of course, the stupid, dishonest voters who elect and put up
> with them.

The problem lies with the educational system that allows total idiots like Liebermann to hang around for six years to avoid the draft and then pats him on the head and sends him out into the world a complete dunce to actually believes himself a genius when he couldn't even get a job in Silicon Valley as a technician let alone an engineer. Vacuum tubes my ass - if he could not design and program a complete integrated circuit design by the end of his first position he was less than a technician. That is why he had to start his own business catering to idiots that couldn't change their own inkjet printer cartridges. The only person with lower intellectual capacity than Krygowski here is Liebermann and yet they are both so in love with themselves that they have to brag about it to you.

On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 6:20:52 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 12/7/2023 9:03 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 12:06:05 -0500, Catrike Rider
> > <sol...@drafting.not> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 11:43:19 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 12/7/2023 5:47 AM, John B. wrote:
> >>>> I read all the do gooders whining about "Oh those poor folks that
> >>>> can't find a job". And there are, I read, 8 million undocumented
> >>>> immigrants working in the U.S. But there ain't no jobs!
> >>>
> >>> Where are you reading about people who can't find jobs? The unemployment
> >>> rate is lower than it's been for the past 30 years, maybe longer.
> >>
> >> ..mostly because many people are not looking for jobs. The so called
> >> "unemployment rate" is the percentage of people looking for jobs.
> >
> > Re: how the rate is determined see
> > https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
> >
> > As of November 2023 there were 1.8 million people drawing unemployment
> > and, as I wrote some 8 million illegal workers employed, in the U.S.
> >
> > But regardless of the present rate versus previous rates you still
> > have nearly 2 million people sucking on the government tit in an
> > society where there are 8 million illegal workers.
>
> "nearly 2 million people sucking on the government tit"
> That's just the UC parasites.
> It's over 50% now. Utterly unsustainable.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> a...@yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Imagine what would become of the human race if AI and robotic workers did everything. Humans would be nothing more than babies suckling off of the tits of the superior intelligence. I dare say that even Krygowski can understand that since his entire existence was based on his work. As was that for most of us.

On 12/8/2023 9:31 AM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>
> Understand, though, that I have no issue with any of these kinds of
> issues that don't effect me.

And yet this guy jumps headlong into any online rant about "these kinds
of issues." He needs to get a life outside right wing political outrage
on Usenet.

Here's an idea: Start a new project! Learn to ride on normal roads!
Leave the kiddie path behind!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 11:03:06 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 12/8/2023 9:31 AM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>
>> Understand, though, that I have no issue with any of these kinds of
>> issues that don't effect me.
>
>And yet this guy jumps headlong into any online rant about "these kinds
>of issues." He needs to get a life outside right wing political outrage
>on Usenet.

That''s from the guy who is still outraged (see below) because I won't
bike ride the way he wants.

>Here's an idea: Start a new project! Learn to ride on normal roads!
>Leave the kiddie path behind!

On 12/6/2023 8:53 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:

<snip>

> 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.

What the Experts say About Chain Waxing:

"When wax was popular, we'd get customers coming in all the time
complaining about shifting problems on their bikes. Removed the wax and
lubed with conventional stuff and voila, shifting back to normal." Mike
Jacoubowsky, co-owner of Chain Reaction Bicycles.

"Wax is not mobile and cannot return to a location from which it has
been removed by rotation of one part on another." Jobst Brandt, author
of The Bicycle Wheel

"If you use dry lube or wax, follow product directions and use it often.
In some cases, dry lube should be used for every ride. It wears off very
quickly and no new lube can flow to the critical wear areas." Craig
Metalcraft, manufacturer of Super Link III.

"Downsides of the wax approach include the fact that it is a great deal
of trouble, and that wax is probably not as good a lubricant as oil or
grease." Sheldon Brown

If you do use wax be sure to mix it with oil so you at least have some
lubrication of the chain. I don't think that anyone still just uses pure
paraffin with no actual lubricant added.

--
“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 14:11:31 +0100, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de>
wrote:

>Am 08.12.2023 um 12:51 schrieb Catrike Rider:
>> On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 12:29:43 +0100, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 08.12.2023 um 10:57 schrieb John B.:
>>>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 04:36:18 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 10:50:22 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 18:03:59 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 05:27:35 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 08:46:05 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 17:58:35 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 05:42:54 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 17:21:57 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 00:33:27 -0800 (PST), Lou Holtman
>>>>>>>>>>>> <lou.holtman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 2:46:01?AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 14:46:53 -0800 (PST), 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know. I think a valid option is to lube the shit out of rthe chain to reduce friction and not bothered with cleaning, keep an eye on the chainwear and replace the chain when necessary if you want the cassette to last. If not just wait until the chain skips on the infrequent used cogs and replace chain and cassette. I use that regime on my utility bike with an open chainguard to protect my trousers. Most people however want to clean their chain from time to time. In that case an oily chain is a PIA and in my opinion useless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lou
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I probably should be a bit more explicit. I was referring to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> battles (verbal if nothing else) over the proper way to care for a
>>>>>>>>>>>> chain. After all you just splurged 5,6 hundred dollars, or more, on
>>>>>>>>>>>> this eleventeen speed, plastic thing, with the electric transmission
>>>>>>>>>>>> and the hydraulic brakes . Is $17 a couple of times a year something
>>>>>>>>>>>> to worry about :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding arguments(some call them discussions) about trivial issues,
>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps we (RBT) should have a serious "discussion" about what is the
>>>>>>>>>>> best handlebar tape.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps ??someone?? could post some personal or "friend" related
>>>>>>>>>>> anecdotes about their problems or solutions, or maybe some ??facts??
>>>>>>>>>>> about being interviewed about their handlebar tape related issues.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/2avbjbt8
>>>>>>>>>> Well. there is absolutely nothing to discuss here as the BEST bar tape
>>>>>>>>>> is sown leather and a bargain too, only $54, marked down from $68 :-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I trust there is instruction available for learning how to sew them
>>>>>>>>> on.
>>>>>>>> OF COURSE... Didn't you know? there is a You Tube for
>>>>>>>> Everything :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Shouldn't there be a classroom with a blackboard and an instructor?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you get a pretty piece of paper to frame and hang on the wall?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sure there is a classroom somewhere.
>>>>>> after all
>>>>>> Cornell University, students have the opportunity learn about tree
>>>>>> climbing! The course includes learning how to climb trees, and basic
>>>>>> skills of tree hazard assessment, line placement, ascending,
>>>>>> descending, and moving around in the canopy.
>>>>>> And...
>>>>>> At the Fashion Institute of Technology in New York City, you can take
>>>>>> classes in designing clothes for pets!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But no diploma! After all isn't all the chaps gathering around,
>>>>>> pointing fingers and saying, "Oh Look! Real leather handlebar covers!"
>>>>>> enough of an ego trip? :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> ...and then there is "Gender Studies" for confused people intent on
>>>>> becoming even more confused.
>>>>
>>>> Well Yes. I suppose that some folks have to study to determine the
>>>> difference between male and female (dogs can figure it out without
>>>> classes).
>>>
>>> Well Yes, and some people might have to take language training to
>>> understand the difference between 'Sex' and 'Gender'.
>>
>> There is no difference.
>
>You might benefit from language training then. You might learn the
>lingistic difference between 'Sex' (biological) and 'gender' (behavioural)
>
><r>

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 08:20:48 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 12/7/2023 9:03 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 12:06:05 -0500, Catrike Rider
>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 11:43:19 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/7/2023 5:47 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> I read all the do gooders whining about "Oh those poor folks that
>>>>> can't find a job". And there are, I read, 8 million undocumented
>>>>> immigrants working in the U.S. But there ain't no jobs!
>>>>
>>>> Where are you reading about people who can't find jobs? The unemployment
>>>> rate is lower than it's been for the past 30 years, maybe longer.
>>>
>>> ..mostly because many people are not looking for jobs. The so called
>>> "unemployment rate" is the percentage of people looking for jobs.
>>
>> Re: how the rate is determined see
>> https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
>>
>> As of November 2023 there were 1.8 million people drawing unemployment
>> and, as I wrote some 8 million illegal workers employed, in the U.S.
>>
>> But regardless of the present rate versus previous rates you still
>> have nearly 2 million people sucking on the government tit in an
>> society where there are 8 million illegal workers.
>
>"nearly 2 million people sucking on the government tit"
>
>That's just the UC parasites.
>It's over 50% now. Utterly unsustainable.

:-) I was referring only to those on unemployment. If you want to
include everyone that gets even one penny from the government it is
vast.

"12.5% of the total U.S. population. On average, 41.2 million people
in 21.6 million households received monthly SNAP benefits in the 2022
fiscal year". In the...
I was going to say,in"in the richest country in the world" but I
looked it up and there are 9 other countries that on a GDP per capita
basis are richer then the U.S. :-(

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 12/8/2023 6:13 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 08:20:48 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 12/7/2023 9:03 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 12:06:05 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 11:43:19 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/7/2023 5:47 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> I read all the do gooders whining about "Oh those poor folks that
>>>>>> can't find a job". And there are, I read, 8 million undocumented
>>>>>> immigrants working in the U.S. But there ain't no jobs!
>>>>>
>>>>> Where are you reading about people who can't find jobs? The unemployment
>>>>> rate is lower than it's been for the past 30 years, maybe longer.
>>>>
>>>> ..mostly because many people are not looking for jobs. The so called
>>>> "unemployment rate" is the percentage of people looking for jobs.
>>>
>>> Re: how the rate is determined see
>>> https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
>>>
>>> As of November 2023 there were 1.8 million people drawing unemployment
>>> and, as I wrote some 8 million illegal workers employed, in the U.S.
>>>
>>> But regardless of the present rate versus previous rates you still
>>> have nearly 2 million people sucking on the government tit in an
>>> society where there are 8 million illegal workers.
>>
>> "nearly 2 million people sucking on the government tit"
>>
>> That's just the UC parasites.
>> It's over 50% now. Utterly unsustainable.
>
> :-) I was referring only to those on unemployment. If you want to
> include everyone that gets even one penny from the government it is
> vast.
>
> "12.5% of the total U.S. population. On average, 41.2 million people
> in 21.6 million households received monthly SNAP benefits in the 2022
> fiscal year". In the...
> I was going to say,in"in the richest country in the world" but I
> looked it up and there are 9 other countries that on a GDP per capita
> basis are richer then the U.S. :-(
>

OK those are two programs. Keep going and you get to over half.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 18:18:52 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 12/8/2023 6:13 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 08:20:48 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/7/2023 9:03 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 12:06:05 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 11:43:19 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/7/2023 5:47 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> I read all the do gooders whining about "Oh those poor folks that
>>>>>>> can't find a job". And there are, I read, 8 million undocumented
>>>>>>> immigrants working in the U.S. But there ain't no jobs!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where are you reading about people who can't find jobs? The unemployment
>>>>>> rate is lower than it's been for the past 30 years, maybe longer.
>>>>>
>>>>> ..mostly because many people are not looking for jobs. The so called
>>>>> "unemployment rate" is the percentage of people looking for jobs.
>>>>
>>>> Re: how the rate is determined see
>>>> https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
>>>>
>>>> As of November 2023 there were 1.8 million people drawing unemployment
>>>> and, as I wrote some 8 million illegal workers employed, in the U.S.
>>>>
>>>> But regardless of the present rate versus previous rates you still
>>>> have nearly 2 million people sucking on the government tit in an
>>>> society where there are 8 million illegal workers.
>>>
>>> "nearly 2 million people sucking on the government tit"
>>>
>>> That's just the UC parasites.
>>> It's over 50% now. Utterly unsustainable.
>>
>> :-) I was referring only to those on unemployment. If you want to
>> include everyone that gets even one penny from the government it is
>> vast.
>>
>> "12.5% of the total U.S. population. On average, 41.2 million people
>> in 21.6 million households received monthly SNAP benefits in the 2022
>> fiscal year". In the...
>> I was going to say,in"in the richest country in the world" but I
>> looked it up and there are 9 other countries that on a GDP per capita
>> basis are richer then the U.S. :-(
>>
>
>OK those are two programs. Keep going and you get to over half.

I'm sure. But I have the excuse of not living there any more :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 12/8/2023 4:34 PM, sms wrote:
> On 12/6/2023 8:53 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> 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.
>
> What the Experts say About Chain Waxing:
>
> "When wax was popular, we'd get customers coming in all the time
> complaining about shifting problems on their bikes. Removed the wax and
> lubed with conventional stuff and voila, shifting back to normal." Mike
> Jacoubowsky, co-owner of Chain Reaction Bicycles.
>
> "Wax is not mobile and cannot return to a location from which it has
> been removed by rotation of one part on another." Jobst Brandt, author
> of The Bicycle Wheel
>
> "If you use dry lube or wax, follow product directions and use it often.
> In some cases, dry lube should be used for every ride. It wears off very
> quickly and no new lube can flow to the critical wear areas." Craig
> Metalcraft, manufacturer of Super Link III.
>
> "Downsides of the wax approach include the fact that it is a great deal
> of trouble, and that wax is probably not as good a lubricant as oil or
> grease." Sheldon Brown
>
> If you do use wax be sure to mix it with oil so you at least have some
> lubrication of the chain. I don't think that anyone still just uses pure
> paraffin with no actual lubricant added.

Yep. As we see, there are those who are so attached to their views that
they will rely on "expert" testimony that's decades old. They purposely
ignore copious, precisely measured modern data.

I guess the teams and their mechanics now using paraffin based lubes on
the chains of their European pro riders are not "experts."

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 06:44:41 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
>The problem lies with the educational system that allows total idiots like Liebermann to hang around for six years to avoid the draft and then pats him on the head and sends him out into the world a complete dunce to actually believes himself a genius when he couldn't even get a job in Silicon Valley as a technician let alone an engineer. Vacuum tubes my ass - if he could not design and program a complete integrated circuit design by the end of his first position he was less than a technician. That is why he had to start his own business catering to idiots that couldn't change their own inkjet printer cartridges. The only person with lower intellectual capacity than Krygowski here is Liebermann and yet they are both so in love with themselves that they have to brag about it to you.

Baloney, lies and distortions. I guess Tom wants some more attention.
I don't want to give him any attention. Well, maybe a little.

How does one "program a complete integrated circuit"? Perhaps in
VHDL, which you didn't even know the correct definition?
(02/05/2021)
VHDL
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/5Dzs6MuEgY0/m/gh_1kmHKBAAJ>
"VHDL is very high density logic and if you are talking about Very
High-level Design Language you say so and don't try to fool people
with acronyms that are most commonly used for something else."
VHDL is not Very High Density Logic. It's "Very High-Speed Integrated
Circuit Hardware Description Language".
That's totally wrong. Here's the correct description of VHDL.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHDL>

Or maybe you want to change your mind about having worked for Analog
Devices?
(02/11/2021)
Worked at Analog Devices
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/_Y1MbXuzvNo/m/yzMUyoSvAgAJ>
"I know that working at Analog Devices designing chips to you seems
somehow [un]important but not to me then and not to me now. Since you
don't understand anything about chip design and how 20 engineers will
work on the same chip and each has a section of the design that is so
insignificant, it isn't worth talking about."

Tom: Feel free to play games with my reputation any time you want to
see me excavate your past mistakes for public inspection. Yeah, I
like that. An eye for an eye and a baseless accusation for a past
blunder. Give yourself a pat on the head. Nobody else will.

Reminder: You won't improve your reputation by attempting to trash
someone else's reputation.

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