On 12/8/2023 6:03 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

<snip>

> How does one "program a complete integrated circuit"? Perhaps in

"program a complete integrated circuit" Wow!

Is anyone as clueless as "he who must not be named?"

--
“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 12/6/2023 1:44 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:

<snip>

> 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.

Different people care about different things when it comes to chain
maintenance.

Some people care only about having the cleanest chain on the outside,
and keeping their cogs as clean as possible.

Jobst explicitly addresses this: “The rate of wear is dependent
primarily on how clean the chain is internally rather than visible
external cleanliness that gets the most attention.”

Jobst advised cleaning the chain with a solvent like kerosene, removing
the solvent, then lubricating with a motorcycle chain, or chainsaw,
lubricant, and explicitly warns against paraffin, writing: “Paraffin
(canning wax), although clean, works poorly because it is not mobile and
cannot replenish the bearing surfaces once it has been displaced. This
becomes apparent with any water that gets on the chain. It immediately
squeaks.”

Some people care only about the lowest friction.

Some people care only about how fast they can clean and lubricate their
chain.

Some people care about how well their chain shifts. Mike Jacubowsky, a
bicycle shop owner that used to post on rec.bicycles.tech stated: "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."

Some people want to minimize the hassle of chain lubrication. The late
Sheldon Brown wrote: "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."

Some people care only about how long their chain will last, and are
willing to spend a lot of time on chain cleaning and lubrication.

Personally, I have long used the Jobst approach, even before reading
what he wrote. I first clean the chain with a solvent, then I lubricate
the chain with either foaming chain lubricant for non-O-ring chains or
with chainsaw oil. What concept! Lubricating a chain with a lubricant
expressly designed for lubricating chains!

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 18:43:09 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 9:03:38?PM UTC-5, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 06:44:41 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
>> <cycl...@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>
>
>VHDL is the initialism for VHSIC Hardware Description Language
>VHSIC is the initialism for Very High Speed Integrated Circuit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_High_Speed_Integrated_Circuit_Program)
>Therefore VHDL is the abbreviation for Very High Speed Integrated Circuit Hardware Description Language
>
>I think you mistakenly left my response to toms claim that VHDL was Very High Density Logic in that snip.

Well, not quite mistakenly. When I cite Tom's mistakes, I try to
avoid quoting the entire discussion, which usually includes
corrections. In this case, I thought that citing the Wikipedia
article would be sufficient to demonstrate that Tom was wrong and not
even close to the correct definition of VHDL. I also didn't want to
confuse things by mentioning that Tom's online resume does not include
any mention of VHDL experience or Analog Devices (ADI) employment:
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-kunich-22012/details/experience/>
>> 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."
>
>He probably got an interview there once and was shown the exit when he claimed VHDL stands for Very High Density Logic

Since Analog Devices does not appear on Tom's online resume, and ADI
acquired a number of major acquisitions (TI, Maxim, Linear Tech,
Hittite, etc), it will be rather difficult to deduce where in the SF
Bay area Tom worked as a chip designer. Maybe Tom can add the missing
dates and locations to his online resume? It might also be nice if he
would edit the resume (again) so that he's not working at Tality Corp
and Diablo (Clinical?) Research during the same 4 year time period.
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-kunich-22012/details/experience/>

>> 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.
>
>His reputation was trash long before he ever darkened this forum

True. That's why I minimize responding to his personalized attacked
in RBT. I don't believe that Tom will ever change for the better.

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

On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 10:34:44 PM UTC+1, 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.
>
> --
> “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

Experts can be wrong. My own experience is more valuable. Waxed base lubricants developed over the years. A colleague of mine, a chemist and a cyclist, developed his own wax based lubricant and I was one of his tester. His waxed based lubricant went from horrible to excellent in a couple of iterations. The mobility ‘feature’ of oil as Jobst mentioned is at the same time the problem. It also moves the dirt into the innerts of the chain.

Lou

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 19:53:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>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.

Everyone makes their own decisions about who's advice to take. It
seems that there are many who, like me, ignore Krygowski's advice.

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

I suspect they are not terribly concerned with how long their chains
will last.

On 12/8/2023 10:03 PM, sms wrote:
> On 12/6/2023 1:44 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> 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.
>
> Different people care about different things when it comes
> to chain maintenance.
>
> Some people care only about having the cleanest chain on the
> outside, and keeping their cogs as clean as possible.
>
> Jobst explicitly addresses this: “The rate of wear is
> dependent primarily on how clean the chain is internally
> rather than visible external cleanliness that gets the most
> attention.”
>
> Jobst advised cleaning the chain with a solvent like
> kerosene, removing the solvent, then lubricating with a
> motorcycle chain, or chainsaw, lubricant, and explicitly
> warns against paraffin, writing: “Paraffin (canning wax),
> although clean, works poorly because it is not mobile and
> cannot replenish the bearing surfaces once it has been
> displaced. This becomes apparent with any water that gets on
> the chain. It immediately squeaks.”
>
>
> Some people care only about the lowest friction.
>
>
> Some people care only about how fast they can clean and
> lubricate their chain.
>
>
> Some people care about how well their chain shifts. Mike
> Jacubowsky, a bicycle shop owner that used to post on
> rec.bicycles.tech stated: "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."
>
>
> Some people want to minimize the hassle of chain
> lubrication. The late Sheldon Brown wrote: "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."
>
>
> Some people care only about how long their chain will last,
> and are willing to spend a lot of time on chain cleaning and
> lubrication.
>
>
> Personally, I have long used the Jobst approach, even before
> reading what he wrote. I first clean the chain with a
> solvent, then I lubricate the chain with either foaming
> chain lubricant for non-O-ring chains or with chainsaw oil.
> What concept! Lubricating a chain with a lubricant expressly
> designed for lubricating chains!
>

In this, as everything else, people may agree on each of the
relevant facts and yet weigh various degrees of import to
each criterion. Which is fine.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 00:05:59 -0800 (PST), Lou Holtman
<lou.holtman@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 10:34:44?PM UTC+1, 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.
>>
>> --
>> “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
>
>Experts can be wrong. My own experience is more valuable. Waxed base lubricants developed over the years. A colleague of mine, a chemist and a cyclist, developed his own wax based lubricant and I was one of his tester. His waxed based lubricant went from horrible to excellent in a couple of iterations. The mobility ‘feature’ of oil as Jobst mentioned is at the same time the problem. It also moves the dirt into the innerts of the chain.
>
>Lou

My current chain has been lubed with White Lightning since I first put
it on, but I don't like the wax buildup on it and the sprockets. It's
recommenced that I apply it every 50 miles. I only do it every two or
three rides (120-150 miles but the wax still gets thick and messy,
especially on the rear derailleur's sprockets. I believe I'll go back
to oil lube on my next chain. I have 3200 miles on this chain so I
should have around 2500 more miles to go before I'll need a new one.
The longer chain gets more miles.

On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 2:49:00 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
> On 12/8/2023 10:03 PM, sms wrote:
> > On 12/6/2023 1:44 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > Different people care about different things when it comes
> > to chain maintenance.
> >
> > Some people care only about having the cleanest chain on the
> > outside, and keeping their cogs as clean as possible.
> >
> > Jobst explicitly addresses this: “The rate of wear is
> > dependent primarily on how clean the chain is internally
> > rather than visible external cleanliness that gets the most
> > attention.”
> >
> > Jobst advised cleaning the chain with a solvent like
> > kerosene, removing the solvent, then lubricating with a
> > motorcycle chain, or chainsaw, lubricant, and explicitly
> > warns against paraffin, writing: “Paraffin (canning wax),
> > although clean, works poorly because it is not mobile and
> > cannot replenish the bearing surfaces once it has been
> > displaced. This becomes apparent with any water that gets on
> > the chain. It immediately squeaks.”
> >
> >
> > Some people care only about the lowest friction.
> >
> >
> > Some people care only about how fast they can clean and
> > lubricate their chain.
> >
> >
> > Some people care about how well their chain shifts. Mike
> > Jacubowsky, a bicycle shop owner that used to post on
> > rec.bicycles.tech stated: "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."
> >
> >
> > Some people want to minimize the hassle of chain
> > lubrication. The late Sheldon Brown wrote: "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."
> >
> >
> > Some people care only about how long their chain will last,
> > and are willing to spend a lot of time on chain cleaning and
> > lubrication.
> >
> >
> > Personally, I have long used the Jobst approach, even before
> > reading what he wrote. I first clean the chain with a
> > solvent, then I lubricate the chain with either foaming
> > chain lubricant for non-O-ring chains or with chainsaw oil.
> > What concept! Lubricating a chain with a lubricant expressly
> > designed for lubricating chains!
> >
> In this, as everything else, people may agree on each of the
> relevant facts and yet weigh various degrees of import to
> each criterion. Which is fine.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> a...@yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Of coarse. Personally I want low friction, don’t want to take of the chain for cleaning, don’t want to use solvents to clean my chain, dont want to ‘cook’ or torch my chain, don’t want to chisel off muck of my guide pulleys and cogs, I don’t want to get greasy hands/clothes when I accidentally touch the chain. I don’t mind to lube my chain after a very wet and muddy ride and chain life is an outcome and costs are irrelevant. Ymmv.

Lou

On 12/9/2023 8:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 12/8/2023 10:03 PM, sms wrote:
>> On 12/6/2023 1:44 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Different people care about different things when it comes to chain
>> maintenance.
>>
>> Some people care only about having the cleanest chain on the outside,
>> and keeping their cogs as clean as possible.
>>
>> Jobst explicitly addresses this: “The rate of wear is dependent
>> primarily on how clean the chain is internally rather than visible
>> external cleanliness that gets the most attention.”
>>
>> Jobst advised cleaning the chain with a solvent like kerosene,
>> removing the solvent, then lubricating with a motorcycle chain, or
>> chainsaw, lubricant, and explicitly warns against paraffin, writing:
>> “Paraffin (canning wax), although clean, works poorly because it is
>> not mobile and cannot replenish the bearing surfaces once it has been
>> displaced. This becomes apparent with any water that gets on the
>> chain. It immediately squeaks.”
>>
>>
>> Some people care only about the lowest friction.
>>
>>
>> Some people care only about how fast they can clean and lubricate
>> their chain.
>>
>>
>> Some people care about how well their chain shifts. Mike Jacubowsky, a
>> bicycle shop owner that used to post on rec.bicycles.tech stated:
>> "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."
>>
>>
>> Some people want to minimize the hassle of chain lubrication. The late
>> Sheldon Brown wrote: "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."
>>
>>
>> Some people care only about how long their chain will last, and are
>> willing to spend a lot of time on chain cleaning and lubrication.
>>
>>
>> Personally, I have long used the Jobst approach, even before reading
>> what he wrote. I first clean the chain with a solvent, then I
>> lubricate the chain with either foaming chain lubricant for non-O-ring
>> chains or with chainsaw oil. What concept! Lubricating a chain with a
>> lubricant expressly designed for lubricating chains!
>>
>
> In this, as everything else, people may agree on each of the relevant
> facts and yet weigh various degrees of import to each criterion. Which
> is fine.

It's fine for people to have different priorities. But Mr. Scharf
persists in quoting decades-old theoretical opinions to tell us that
diligent modern scientific tests are wrong, and to claim that paraffin
wax based lubes cannot work.

Multiple testers have found they provide both the greatest efficiency
and the greatest chain life by far. This is now acknowledged by racing
professionals.

If he said "I just don't like it even though it works best," it would at
least be truthful.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 12/9/2023 9:56 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 12/9/2023 8:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 12/8/2023 10:03 PM, sms wrote:
>>> On 12/6/2023 1:44 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Different people care about different things when it
>>> comes to chain maintenance.
>>>
>>> Some people care only about having the cleanest chain on
>>> the outside, and keeping their cogs as clean as possible.
>>>
>>> Jobst explicitly addresses this: “The rate of wear is
>>> dependent primarily on how clean the chain is internally
>>> rather than visible external cleanliness that gets the
>>> most attention.”
>>>
>>> Jobst advised cleaning the chain with a solvent like
>>> kerosene, removing the solvent, then lubricating with a
>>> motorcycle chain, or chainsaw, lubricant, and explicitly
>>> warns against paraffin, writing: “Paraffin (canning wax),
>>> although clean, works poorly because it is not mobile and
>>> cannot replenish the bearing surfaces once it has been
>>> displaced. This becomes apparent with any water that gets
>>> on the chain. It immediately squeaks.”
>>>
>>>
>>> Some people care only about the lowest friction.
>>>
>>>
>>> Some people care only about how fast they can clean and
>>> lubricate their chain.
>>>
>>>
>>> Some people care about how well their chain shifts. Mike
>>> Jacubowsky, a bicycle shop owner that used to post on
>>> rec.bicycles.tech stated: "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."
>>>
>>>
>>> Some people want to minimize the hassle of chain
>>> lubrication. The late Sheldon Brown wrote: "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."
>>>
>>>
>>> Some people care only about how long their chain will
>>> last, and are willing to spend a lot of time on chain
>>> cleaning and lubrication.
>>>
>>>
>>> Personally, I have long used the Jobst approach, even
>>> before reading what he wrote. I first clean the chain
>>> with a solvent, then I lubricate the chain with either
>>> foaming chain lubricant for non-O-ring chains or with
>>> chainsaw oil. What concept! Lubricating a chain with a
>>> lubricant expressly designed for lubricating chains!
>>>
>>
>> In this, as everything else, people may agree on each of
>> the relevant facts and yet weigh various degrees of import
>> to each criterion. Which is fine.
>
> It's fine for people to have different priorities. But Mr.
> Scharf persists in quoting decades-old theoretical opinions
> to tell us that diligent modern scientific tests are wrong,
> and to claim that paraffin wax based lubes cannot work.
>
> Multiple testers have found they provide both the greatest
> efficiency and the greatest chain life by far. This is now
> acknowledged by racing professionals.
>
> If he said "I just don't like it even though it works best,"
> it would at least be truthful.
>

So both of you make an argument from authority and neither
of you attempt to change criteria weighting.

What if a few seconds of oil/wipe are seen as insignificant
to some riders compared to a waxing process?

Or, conversely, what if 'no black gunk' is of prime
importance to another rider?

For every rider who holds long chain mileage (reduced wear)
as his goal, there's another guy who happily tosses them
away at low mileage for a new clean chain.

Neither of you are more right, or more wrong, than the
other. And neither of you have likely moved anyone's
opinion/decision.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 12/9/2023 10:09 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 12/9/2023 9:56 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 12/9/2023 8:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 12/8/2023 10:03 PM, sms wrote:
>>>> On 12/6/2023 1:44 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Different people care about different things when it
>>>> comes to chain maintenance.
>>>>
>>>> Some people care only about having the cleanest chain on
>>>> the outside, and keeping their cogs as clean as possible.
>>>>
>>>> Jobst explicitly addresses this: “The rate of wear is
>>>> dependent primarily on how clean the chain is internally
>>>> rather than visible external cleanliness that gets the
>>>> most attention.”
>>>>
>>>> Jobst advised cleaning the chain with a solvent like
>>>> kerosene, removing the solvent, then lubricating with a
>>>> motorcycle chain, or chainsaw, lubricant, and explicitly
>>>> warns against paraffin, writing: “Paraffin (canning
>>>> wax), although clean, works poorly because it is not
>>>> mobile and cannot replenish the bearing surfaces once it
>>>> has been displaced. This becomes apparent with any water
>>>> that gets on the chain. It immediately squeaks.”
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Some people care only about the lowest friction.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Some people care only about how fast they can clean and
>>>> lubricate their chain.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Some people care about how well their chain shifts. Mike
>>>> Jacubowsky, a bicycle shop owner that used to post on
>>>> rec.bicycles.tech stated: "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."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Some people want to minimize the hassle of chain
>>>> lubrication. The late Sheldon Brown wrote: "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."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Some people care only about how long their chain will
>>>> last, and are willing to spend a lot of time on chain
>>>> cleaning and lubrication.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I have long used the Jobst approach, even
>>>> before reading what he wrote. I first clean the chain
>>>> with a solvent, then I lubricate the chain with either
>>>> foaming chain lubricant for non-O-ring chains or with
>>>> chainsaw oil. What concept! Lubricating a chain with a
>>>> lubricant expressly designed for lubricating chains!
>>>>
>>>
>>> In this, as everything else, people may agree on each of
>>> the relevant facts and yet weigh various degrees of
>>> import to each criterion. Which is fine.
>>
>> It's fine for people to have different priorities. But Mr.
>> Scharf persists in quoting decades-old theoretical
>> opinions to tell us that diligent modern scientific tests
>> are wrong, and to claim that paraffin wax based lubes
>> cannot work.
>>
>> Multiple testers have found they provide both the greatest
>> efficiency and the greatest chain life by far. This is now
>> acknowledged by racing professionals.
>>
>> If he said "I just don't like it even though it works
>> best," it would at least be truthful.
>>
>
> So both of you make an argument from authority and neither
> of you attempt to change criteria weighting.
>
> What if a few seconds of oil/wipe are seen as insignificant
> to some riders compared to a waxing process?
>
> Or, conversely, what if 'no black gunk' is of prime
> importance to another rider?
>
> For every rider who holds long chain mileage (reduced wear)
> as his goal, there's another guy who happily tosses them
> away at low mileage for a new clean chain.
>
> Neither of you are more right, or more wrong, than the
> other. And neither of you have likely moved anyone's
> opinion/decision.

Or pseudo-German bots. One never really knows.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 12/9/2023 11:09 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 12/9/2023 9:56 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 12/9/2023 8:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 12/8/2023 10:03 PM, sms wrote:
>>>> On 12/6/2023 1:44 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Different people care about different things when it comes to chain
>>>> maintenance.
>>>>
>>>> Some people care only about having the cleanest chain on the
>>>> outside, and keeping their cogs as clean as possible.
>>>>
>>>> Jobst explicitly addresses this: “The rate of wear is dependent
>>>> primarily on how clean the chain is internally rather than visible
>>>> external cleanliness that gets the most attention.”
>>>>
>>>> Jobst advised cleaning the chain with a solvent like kerosene,
>>>> removing the solvent, then lubricating with a motorcycle chain, or
>>>> chainsaw, lubricant, and explicitly warns against paraffin, writing:
>>>> “Paraffin (canning wax), although clean, works poorly because it is
>>>> not mobile and cannot replenish the bearing surfaces once it has
>>>> been displaced. This becomes apparent with any water that gets on
>>>> the chain. It immediately squeaks.”
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Some people care only about the lowest friction.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Some people care only about how fast they can clean and lubricate
>>>> their chain.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Some people care about how well their chain shifts. Mike Jacubowsky,
>>>> a bicycle shop owner that used to post on rec.bicycles.tech stated:
>>>> "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."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Some people want to minimize the hassle of chain lubrication. The
>>>> late Sheldon Brown wrote: "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."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Some people care only about how long their chain will last, and are
>>>> willing to spend a lot of time on chain cleaning and lubrication.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I have long used the Jobst approach, even before reading
>>>> what he wrote. I first clean the chain with a solvent, then I
>>>> lubricate the chain with either foaming chain lubricant for
>>>> non-O-ring chains or with chainsaw oil. What concept! Lubricating a
>>>> chain with a lubricant expressly designed for lubricating chains!
>>>>
>>>
>>> In this, as everything else, people may agree on each of the relevant
>>> facts and yet weigh various degrees of import to each criterion.
>>> Which is fine.
>>
>> It's fine for people to have different priorities. But Mr. Scharf
>> persists in quoting decades-old theoretical opinions to tell us that
>> diligent modern scientific tests are wrong, and to claim that paraffin
>> wax based lubes cannot work.
>>
>> Multiple testers have found they provide both the greatest efficiency
>> and the greatest chain life by far. This is now acknowledged by racing
>> professionals.
>>
>> If he said "I just don't like it even though it works best," it would
>> at least be truthful.
>>
>
> So both of you make an argument from authority and neither of you
> attempt to change criteria weighting.

There's a fundamental difference between the "authority" of someone
telling what he visualizes, and the authority of hundreds of careful
laboratory measurements.

> What if a few seconds of oil/wipe are seen as insignificant to some
> riders compared to a waxing process?
>
> Or, conversely, what if 'no black gunk' is of prime importance to
> another rider?

All that is fine. I'm not disputing the fact that someone may have
different priorities. I'm disputing Scharf's unchanging decades-old
claims that chain lubricants based on paraffin wax cannot work.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 11:14:37 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 12/9/2023 11:09 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 12/9/2023 9:56 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 12/9/2023 8:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 12/8/2023 10:03 PM, sms wrote:
>>>>> On 12/6/2023 1:44 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Different people care about different things when it comes to chain
>>>>> maintenance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some people care only about having the cleanest chain on the
>>>>> outside, and keeping their cogs as clean as possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jobst explicitly addresses this: “The rate of wear is dependent
>>>>> primarily on how clean the chain is internally rather than visible
>>>>> external cleanliness that gets the most attention.”
>>>>>
>>>>> Jobst advised cleaning the chain with a solvent like kerosene,
>>>>> removing the solvent, then lubricating with a motorcycle chain, or
>>>>> chainsaw, lubricant, and explicitly warns against paraffin, writing:
>>>>> “Paraffin (canning wax), although clean, works poorly because it is
>>>>> not mobile and cannot replenish the bearing surfaces once it has
>>>>> been displaced. This becomes apparent with any water that gets on
>>>>> the chain. It immediately squeaks.”
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Some people care only about the lowest friction.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Some people care only about how fast they can clean and lubricate
>>>>> their chain.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Some people care about how well their chain shifts. Mike Jacubowsky,
>>>>> a bicycle shop owner that used to post on rec.bicycles.tech stated:
>>>>> "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."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Some people want to minimize the hassle of chain lubrication. The
>>>>> late Sheldon Brown wrote: "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."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Some people care only about how long their chain will last, and are
>>>>> willing to spend a lot of time on chain cleaning and lubrication.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally, I have long used the Jobst approach, even before reading
>>>>> what he wrote. I first clean the chain with a solvent, then I
>>>>> lubricate the chain with either foaming chain lubricant for
>>>>> non-O-ring chains or with chainsaw oil. What concept! Lubricating a
>>>>> chain with a lubricant expressly designed for lubricating chains!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In this, as everything else, people may agree on each of the relevant
>>>> facts and yet weigh various degrees of import to each criterion.
>>>> Which is fine.
>>>
>>> It's fine for people to have different priorities. But Mr. Scharf
>>> persists in quoting decades-old theoretical opinions to tell us that
>>> diligent modern scientific tests are wrong, and to claim that paraffin
>>> wax based lubes cannot work.
>>>
>>> Multiple testers have found they provide both the greatest efficiency
>>> and the greatest chain life by far. This is now acknowledged by racing
>>> professionals.
>>>
>>> If he said "I just don't like it even though it works best," it would
>>> at least be truthful.
>>>
>>
>> So both of you make an argument from authority and neither of you
>> attempt to change criteria weighting.
>
>There's a fundamental difference between the "authority" of someone
>telling what he visualizes, and the authority of hundreds of careful
>laboratory measurements.
>
>> What if a few seconds of oil/wipe are seen as insignificant to some
>> riders compared to a waxing process?
>>
>> Or, conversely, what if 'no black gunk' is of prime importance to
>> another rider?
>
>All that is fine. I'm not disputing the fact that someone may have
>different priorities. I'm disputing Scharf's unchanging decades-old
>claims that chain lubricants based on paraffin wax cannot work.

I don't think he made that claim, I believe what he really said is
that he didn't think that anyone still just uses pure paraffin with no
actual lubricant added.

If one wanted to refute that point they could go looking for someone
of consequence that " just uses pure paraffin with no actual lubricant
added."

But really, am I the only one here that doesn't think it makes a
significant difference as long as you keep the chain lubed? My White
Lightening lubed chain seems to be working as well as back when I used
oil-based lube.

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 10:56:48 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 12/9/2023 8:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 12/8/2023 10:03 PM, sms wrote:
>>> On 12/6/2023 1:44 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Different people care about different things when it comes to chain
>>> maintenance.
>>>
>>> Some people care only about having the cleanest chain on the outside,
>>> and keeping their cogs as clean as possible.
>>>
>>> Jobst explicitly addresses this: “The rate of wear is dependent
>>> primarily on how clean the chain is internally rather than visible
>>> external cleanliness that gets the most attention.”
>>>
>>> Jobst advised cleaning the chain with a solvent like kerosene,
>>> removing the solvent, then lubricating with a motorcycle chain, or
>>> chainsaw, lubricant, and explicitly warns against paraffin, writing:
>>> “Paraffin (canning wax), although clean, works poorly because it is
>>> not mobile and cannot replenish the bearing surfaces once it has been
>>> displaced. This becomes apparent with any water that gets on the
>>> chain. It immediately squeaks.”
>>>
>>>
>>> Some people care only about the lowest friction.
>>>
>>>
>>> Some people care only about how fast they can clean and lubricate
>>> their chain.
>>>
>>>
>>> Some people care about how well their chain shifts. Mike Jacubowsky, a
>>> bicycle shop owner that used to post on rec.bicycles.tech stated:
>>> "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."
>>>
>>>
>>> Some people want to minimize the hassle of chain lubrication. The late
>>> Sheldon Brown wrote: "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."
>>>
>>>
>>> Some people care only about how long their chain will last, and are
>>> willing to spend a lot of time on chain cleaning and lubrication.
>>>
>>>
>>> Personally, I have long used the Jobst approach, even before reading
>>> what he wrote. I first clean the chain with a solvent, then I
>>> lubricate the chain with either foaming chain lubricant for non-O-ring
>>> chains or with chainsaw oil. What concept! Lubricating a chain with a
>>> lubricant expressly designed for lubricating chains!
>>>
>>
>> In this, as everything else, people may agree on each of the relevant
>> facts and yet weigh various degrees of import to each criterion. Which
>> is fine.
>
>It's fine for people to have different priorities. But Mr. Scharf
>persists in quoting decades-old theoretical opinions to tell us that
>diligent modern scientific tests are wrong, and to claim that paraffin
>wax based lubes cannot work.
>
>Multiple testers have found they provide both the greatest efficiency
>and the greatest chain life by far. This is now acknowledged by racing
>professionals.
>
>If he said "I just don't like it even though it works best," it would at
>least be truthful.

I suspect he doesn't think it works best...

If Krygowski would just say "I understand that other people might have
a different opinion, it would at least make him be less of a
contentious jackass.

On 12/9/2023 5:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:

<snip>

> In this, as everything else, people may agree on each of the relevant
> facts and yet weigh various degrees of import to each criterion. Which
> is fine.

Exactly. What is sad is when someone picks out a single factor and then
proclaims that that factor is the most important to everyone.

A magazine can run a test, with six clean and freshly lubricated chains,
to "prove" which type of cleaning and lubrication is the best based
solely on the power loss for each, and you can be sure that "he who must
not be named" will proclaim that this means whatever he is doing is
obviously the best and that everyone else should express adoration for him.

And of course chain cleaning and lubrication is only one such example of
this behavior. You see this in many other bicycle and non-bicycle
related subjects. I.e. I once bought a car that I knew was less reliable
than a Toyota, expressly because of the performance and handling of that
vehicle. But I never tried to tell everyone else that they should do the
same thing because for many people reliability is the most important factor.

--
“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 12/10/2023 9:19 AM, sms wrote:
> On 12/9/2023 5:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> In this, as everything else, people may agree on each of the relevant
>> facts and yet weigh various degrees of import to each criterion. Which
>> is fine.
>
> Exactly. What is sad is when someone picks out a single factor and then
> proclaims that that factor is the most important to everyone.

For those interested in actual data instead of vague hand waving or
decades old opinions of "experts":

Here's an article from a few years ago about the most thorough tests of
chain efficiency up to that time:
https://www.bikeradar.com/news/friction-facts-measuring-drivetrain-efficiency/

Those tests showed paraffin based chain lubes had the lowest friction
losses. That's why such lubes are now popular with many pro teams.

The article has links one can follow for more information. (I haven't
checked whether those links are still current.)

The most recent edition of _Bicycling_ magazine has this article.
https://www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear/a40627435/the-right-chain-lube/
It's behind a paywall, for subscribers only. I bought the printed version.

Instead of efficiency, these tests measured wear life, including with
dirt, water, etc. added; but the author notes that longer wear life
correlates with increased efficiency. And that paraffin based chain
lubes produce the longest wear life.

All that corroborates a 1977 article that I've posted here many times
over the years. https://flic.kr/p/dkUGq6 and https://flic.kr/p/dkULS1
That test was much more "home made," done by just riding countless miles
and measuring wear with a micrometer. It's a "real world" test instead
of a laboratory test. But it too found paraffin based chain lubes gave
far longer wear life than any liquid lube the tester found.

So: Am I picking out a "single factor"? I don't think so. These results
indicate Factor #1 is Efficiency. Factor #2 is Chain Life, plus cassette
or cog life, plus chainring life. Factor #3 is actually the reason I
settled on paraffin wax based lubrication: The bike stays amazingly
cleaner.

Which, once again, does not mean anyone has to use this or any other
chain lube. Do what you like! I don't follow the procedures described
above. My method of wax application is probably not as good (although it
is very clean), but my method is much less trouble.

Again, do what you like! Some apparently really love dripping stuff on
their chain, then later scraping its black version off their bike, plus
solvent cleaning their chain in ultrasonic or other gizmos. Have fun!

But if you (like Scharf) are going to claim your method is measurably
"better," please bring data.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 11:26:05 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 12/10/2023 9:19 AM, sms wrote:
>> On 12/9/2023 5:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> In this, as everything else, people may agree on each of the relevant
>>> facts and yet weigh various degrees of import to each criterion. Which
>>> is fine.
>>
>> Exactly. What is sad is when someone picks out a single factor and then
>> proclaims that that factor is the most important to everyone.
>
>For those interested in actual data instead of vague hand waving or
>decades old opinions of "experts":
>
>Here's an article from a few years ago about the most thorough tests of
>chain efficiency up to that time:
>https://www.bikeradar.com/news/friction-facts-measuring-drivetrain-efficiency/
>
>Those tests showed paraffin based chain lubes had the lowest friction
>losses. That's why such lubes are now popular with many pro teams.
>
>The article has links one can follow for more information. (I haven't
>checked whether those links are still current.)
>
>The most recent edition of _Bicycling_ magazine has this article.
>https://www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear/a40627435/the-right-chain-lube/
>It's behind a paywall, for subscribers only. I bought the printed version.
>
>Instead of efficiency, these tests measured wear life, including with
>dirt, water, etc. added; but the author notes that longer wear life
>correlates with increased efficiency. And that paraffin based chain
>lubes produce the longest wear life.
>
>All that corroborates a 1977 article that I've posted here many times
>over the years. https://flic.kr/p/dkUGq6 and https://flic.kr/p/dkULS1
>That test was much more "home made," done by just riding countless miles
>and measuring wear with a micrometer. It's a "real world" test instead
>of a laboratory test. But it too found paraffin based chain lubes gave
>far longer wear life than any liquid lube the tester found.
>
>So: Am I picking out a "single factor"? I don't think so. These results
>indicate Factor #1 is Efficiency. Factor #2 is Chain Life, plus cassette
>or cog life, plus chainring life. Factor #3 is actually the reason I
>settled on paraffin wax based lubrication: The bike stays amazingly
>cleaner.
>
>Which, once again, does not mean anyone has to use this or any other
>chain lube. Do what you like! I don't follow the procedures described
>above. My method of wax application is probably not as good (although it
>is very clean), but my method is much less trouble.
>
>Again, do what you like! Some apparently really love dripping stuff on
>their chain, then later scraping its black version off their bike, plus
>solvent cleaning their chain in ultrasonic or other gizmos. Have fun!
>
>But if you (like Scharf) are going to claim your method is measurably
>"better," please bring data.

But why is this so important to you?

On 12/10/2023 10:26 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 12/10/2023 9:19 AM, sms wrote:
>> On 12/9/2023 5:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> In this, as everything else, people may agree on each of
>>> the relevant facts and yet weigh various degrees of
>>> import to each criterion. Which is fine.
>>
>> Exactly. What is sad is when someone picks out a single
>> factor and then proclaims that that factor is the most
>> important to everyone.
>
> For those interested in actual data instead of vague hand
> waving or decades old opinions of "experts":
>
> Here's an article from a few years ago about the most
> thorough tests of chain efficiency up to that time:
> https://www.bikeradar.com/news/friction-facts-measuring-drivetrain-efficiency/
>
> Those tests showed paraffin based chain lubes had the lowest
> friction losses. That's why such lubes are now popular with
> many pro teams.
>
> The article has links one can follow for more information.
> (I haven't checked whether those links are still current.)
>
> The most recent edition of _Bicycling_ magazine has this
> article.
> https://www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear/a40627435/the-right-chain-lube/
> It's behind a paywall, for subscribers only. I bought the
> printed version.
>
> Instead of efficiency, these tests measured wear life,
> including with dirt, water, etc. added; but the author notes
> that longer wear life correlates with increased efficiency.
> And that paraffin based chain lubes produce the longest wear
> life.
>
> All that corroborates a 1977 article that I've posted here
> many times over the years. https://flic.kr/p/dkUGq6   and
> https://flic.kr/p/dkULS1
> That test was much more "home made," done by just riding
> countless miles and measuring wear with a micrometer. It's a
> "real world" test instead of a laboratory test. But it too
> found paraffin based chain lubes gave far longer wear life
> than any liquid lube the tester found.
>
> So: Am I picking out a "single factor"? I don't think so.
> These results indicate Factor #1 is Efficiency. Factor #2 is
> Chain Life, plus cassette or cog life, plus chainring life.
> Factor #3 is actually the reason I settled on paraffin wax
> based lubrication: The bike stays amazingly cleaner.
>
> Which, once again, does not mean anyone has to use this or
> any other chain lube. Do what you like! I don't follow the
> procedures described above. My method of wax application is
> probably not as good (although it is very clean), but my
> method is much less trouble.
>
> Again, do what you like! Some apparently really love
> dripping stuff on their chain, then later scraping its black
> version off their bike, plus solvent cleaning their chain in
> ultrasonic or other gizmos. Have fun!
>
> But if you (like Scharf) are going to claim your method is
> measurably "better," please bring data.
>

Many if not most riders choose 'nothing'. No time,
attention, lubricant or even a passing thought.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 12/10/2023 11:42 AM, Catrike Rider waited a mere 16 minutes to write:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 11:26:05 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 12/10/2023 9:19 AM, sms wrote:
>>> On 12/9/2023 5:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> In this, as everything else, people may agree on each of the relevant
>>>> facts and yet weigh various degrees of import to each criterion. Which
>>>> is fine.
>>>
>>> Exactly. What is sad is when someone picks out a single factor and then
>>> proclaims that that factor is the most important to everyone.
>>
>> For those interested in actual data instead of vague hand waving or
>> decades old opinions of "experts":
>>
>> Here's an article from a few years ago about the most thorough tests of
>> chain efficiency up to that time:
>> https://www.bikeradar.com/news/friction-facts-measuring-drivetrain-efficiency/
>>
>> Those tests showed paraffin based chain lubes had the lowest friction
>> losses. That's why such lubes are now popular with many pro teams.
>>
>> The article has links one can follow for more information. (I haven't
>> checked whether those links are still current.)
>>
>> The most recent edition of _Bicycling_ magazine has this article.
>> https://www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear/a40627435/the-right-chain-lube/
>> It's behind a paywall, for subscribers only. I bought the printed version.
>>
>> Instead of efficiency, these tests measured wear life, including with
>> dirt, water, etc. added; but the author notes that longer wear life
>> correlates with increased efficiency. And that paraffin based chain
>> lubes produce the longest wear life.
>>
>> All that corroborates a 1977 article that I've posted here many times
>> over the years. https://flic.kr/p/dkUGq6 and https://flic.kr/p/dkULS1
>> That test was much more "home made," done by just riding countless miles
>> and measuring wear with a micrometer. It's a "real world" test instead
>> of a laboratory test. But it too found paraffin based chain lubes gave
>> far longer wear life than any liquid lube the tester found.
>>
>> So: Am I picking out a "single factor"? I don't think so. These results
>> indicate Factor #1 is Efficiency. Factor #2 is Chain Life, plus cassette
>> or cog life, plus chainring life. Factor #3 is actually the reason I
>> settled on paraffin wax based lubrication: The bike stays amazingly
>> cleaner.
>>
>> Which, once again, does not mean anyone has to use this or any other
>> chain lube. Do what you like! I don't follow the procedures described
>> above. My method of wax application is probably not as good (although it
>> is very clean), but my method is much less trouble.
>>
>> Again, do what you like! Some apparently really love dripping stuff on
>> their chain, then later scraping its black version off their bike, plus
>> solvent cleaning their chain in ultrasonic or other gizmos. Have fun!
>>
>> But if you (like Scharf) are going to claim your method is measurably
>> "better," please bring data.
>
>
> But why is this so important to you?

I'm an engineer with a deep interest in the technical side of bicycling.
This is (purportedly) a bicycle technical discussion group. Chain care
is an issue with practical and technical significance for cyclists.

Why is it important to you to reflexively nag nearly every post I make?
Does your life really have so little meaning?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 12/10/2023 9:17 AM, AMuzi wrote:

<snip>

> Many if not most riders choose 'nothing'.  No time, attention, lubricant
> or even a passing thought.

I wouldn't say "most" but it's true that a lot of people never clean or
oil their chain.

I just hope that no one falls for the false narrative of waxing without
understanding the reality of how things work in real life. I'm reminded
of when there were people in some of the Usenet vehicle groups endlessly
advocating for one brand of synthetic oil, which happened to destroy
catalytic converters so it could not be approved by the API. There was
no evidence that this oil was any better than any other synthetic oil
but those trying to sell it were constantly posting stories about how
the oil was tested outside of a vehicle and had the least friction based
on some sort of meaningless test. Worse, they were advocating for
abnormally long mileage between oil changes.

--
“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 Sun, 10 Dec 2023 13:14:47 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 12/10/2023 11:42 AM, Catrike Rider waited a mere 16 minutes to write:
>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 11:26:05 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/10/2023 9:19 AM, sms wrote:
>>>> On 12/9/2023 5:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> In this, as everything else, people may agree on each of the relevant
>>>>> facts and yet weigh various degrees of import to each criterion. Which
>>>>> is fine.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly. What is sad is when someone picks out a single factor and then
>>>> proclaims that that factor is the most important to everyone.
>>>
>>> For those interested in actual data instead of vague hand waving or
>>> decades old opinions of "experts":
>>>
>>> Here's an article from a few years ago about the most thorough tests of
>>> chain efficiency up to that time:
>>> https://www.bikeradar.com/news/friction-facts-measuring-drivetrain-efficiency/
>>>
>>> Those tests showed paraffin based chain lubes had the lowest friction
>>> losses. That's why such lubes are now popular with many pro teams.
>>>
>>> The article has links one can follow for more information. (I haven't
>>> checked whether those links are still current.)
>>>
>>> The most recent edition of _Bicycling_ magazine has this article.
>>> https://www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear/a40627435/the-right-chain-lube/
>>> It's behind a paywall, for subscribers only. I bought the printed version.
>>>
>>> Instead of efficiency, these tests measured wear life, including with
>>> dirt, water, etc. added; but the author notes that longer wear life
>>> correlates with increased efficiency. And that paraffin based chain
>>> lubes produce the longest wear life.
>>>
>>> All that corroborates a 1977 article that I've posted here many times
>>> over the years. https://flic.kr/p/dkUGq6 and https://flic.kr/p/dkULS1
>>> That test was much more "home made," done by just riding countless miles
>>> and measuring wear with a micrometer. It's a "real world" test instead
>>> of a laboratory test. But it too found paraffin based chain lubes gave
>>> far longer wear life than any liquid lube the tester found.
>>>
>>> So: Am I picking out a "single factor"? I don't think so. These results
>>> indicate Factor #1 is Efficiency. Factor #2 is Chain Life, plus cassette
>>> or cog life, plus chainring life. Factor #3 is actually the reason I
>>> settled on paraffin wax based lubrication: The bike stays amazingly
>>> cleaner.
>>>
>>> Which, once again, does not mean anyone has to use this or any other
>>> chain lube. Do what you like! I don't follow the procedures described
>>> above. My method of wax application is probably not as good (although it
>>> is very clean), but my method is much less trouble.
>>>
>>> Again, do what you like! Some apparently really love dripping stuff on
>>> their chain, then later scraping its black version off their bike, plus
>>> solvent cleaning their chain in ultrasonic or other gizmos. Have fun!
>>>
>>> But if you (like Scharf) are going to claim your method is measurably
>>> "better," please bring data.
>>
>>
>> But why is this so important to you?
>
>I'm an engineer with a deep interest in the technical side of bicycling.
>This is (purportedly) a bicycle technical discussion group. Chain care
>is an issue with practical and technical significance for cyclists.

Different chain lubes are an insignificant issue, and clearly, a
person's choices in this matter is none of your, or anyone else's
business, yet you attack and berate anyone who disagrees with your
opinions about this and everything..

>Why is it important to you to reflexively nag nearly every post I make?

I think it's significant to call out that all your reflexively nagging
at everything and everybody who dares to doubt that you are the
ultimate arbiter of truth and fact is nothing more than your not so
very good attempts to quash your insecurities and feelings of
inadequacy.

Perhaps, you should have made some attempts to do something of
consequence instead of hiding within the security of the nanny
education system. It's probably too late now.

>Does your life really have so little meaning?

Stop whining and just accept that attacking and berating people has
consequences. See below:

"You seem to be treating "safe" as a binary condition. It's assigning
such a label is far, far more
complicated than a simple "safe" vs. "not safe" evaluation.

For example: Safe compared to what? And measured how - per mile
traveled? Per hour exposure?
Per trip? Per trip of approximately similar distance? Before
answering, please note that cycling
has been repeatedly been measured as safer than walking in terms of
fatalities per mile.

How about defining an activity as "safe" if it meets the criterion
"safer than not doing the activity"?
To me, that sounds pretty simple and logical. By that standard,
bicycling is certainly "safe" on average.
Every study on its benefits vs. detriments has determined that the
health benefits of cycling greatly
outweigh its risks.

Which does not mean it's safe for everybody in every situation. Many
people are just not safe, due
mostly to their knowledge and behavior on a bike. But, as they say,
ignorance can be fixed. There are
organizations that teach even very timid people to ride on normal
roads among traffic. For example,
https://cyclingsavvy.org/

That does not mean you must ride on roads. If you lack the competence
or minimal courage and
are unwilling to learn, keep trucking your pedal vehicle to a bike
path and riding back and forth.
That's too boring for me, but maybe someday I'll be in the same state.
Although I hope not."

- Frank Krygowski

https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/mmxzneaxsdE/m/qYtFPpL3AAAJ

On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 8:42:47 AM UTC-8, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 11:26:05 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >On 12/10/2023 9:19 AM, sms wrote:
> >> On 12/9/2023 5:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >>> In this, as everything else, people may agree on each of the relevant
> >>> facts and yet weigh various degrees of import to each criterion. Which
> >>> is fine.
> >>
> >> Exactly. What is sad is when someone picks out a single factor and then
> >> proclaims that that factor is the most important to everyone.
> >
> >For those interested in actual data instead of vague hand waving or
> >decades old opinions of "experts":
> >
> >Here's an article from a few years ago about the most thorough tests of
> >chain efficiency up to that time:
> >https://www.bikeradar.com/news/friction-facts-measuring-drivetrain-efficiency/
> >
> >Those tests showed paraffin based chain lubes had the lowest friction
> >losses. That's why such lubes are now popular with many pro teams.
> >
> >The article has links one can follow for more information. (I haven't
> >checked whether those links are still current.)
> >
> >The most recent edition of _Bicycling_ magazine has this article.
> >https://www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear/a40627435/the-right-chain-lube/
> >It's behind a paywall, for subscribers only. I bought the printed version.
> >
> >Instead of efficiency, these tests measured wear life, including with
> >dirt, water, etc. added; but the author notes that longer wear life
> >correlates with increased efficiency. And that paraffin based chain
> >lubes produce the longest wear life.
> >
> >All that corroborates a 1977 article that I've posted here many times
> >over the years. https://flic.kr/p/dkUGq6 and https://flic.kr/p/dkULS1
> >That test was much more "home made," done by just riding countless miles
> >and measuring wear with a micrometer. It's a "real world" test instead
> >of a laboratory test. But it too found paraffin based chain lubes gave
> >far longer wear life than any liquid lube the tester found.
> >
> >So: Am I picking out a "single factor"? I don't think so. These results
> >indicate Factor #1 is Efficiency. Factor #2 is Chain Life, plus cassette
> >or cog life, plus chainring life. Factor #3 is actually the reason I
> >settled on paraffin wax based lubrication: The bike stays amazingly
> >cleaner.
> >
> >Which, once again, does not mean anyone has to use this or any other
> >chain lube. Do what you like! I don't follow the procedures described
> >above. My method of wax application is probably not as good (although it
> >is very clean), but my method is much less trouble.
> >
> >Again, do what you like! Some apparently really love dripping stuff on
> >their chain, then later scraping its black version off their bike, plus
> >solvent cleaning their chain in ultrasonic or other gizmos. Have fun!
> >
> >But if you (like Scharf) are going to claim your method is measurably
> >"better," please bring data.
> But why is this so important to you?

Indeed, isn't really odd that Krygowski who has no experience in science is telling us that this is the ultimate in science?

On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 12:04:07 PM UTC-8, sms wrote:
> On 12/10/2023 9:17 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Many if not most riders choose 'nothing'. No time, attention, lubricant
> > or even a passing thought.
> I wouldn't say "most" but it's true that a lot of people never clean or
> oil their chain.
>
> I just hope that no one falls for the false narrative of waxing without
> understanding the reality of how things work in real life. I'm reminded
> of when there were people in some of the Usenet vehicle groups endlessly
> advocating for one brand of synthetic oil, which happened to destroy
> catalytic converters so it could not be approved by the API. There was
> no evidence that this oil was any better than any other synthetic oil
> but those trying to sell it were constantly posting stories about how
> the oil was tested outside of a vehicle and had the least friction based
> on some sort of meaningless test. Worse, they were advocating for
> abnormally long mileage between oil changes.
> --
> “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

It is not a false narrative that waxing prevents your chain from attracting and holding the fine grid that can get between the pins and rollers accelerating wear and making the chain and cassette look filthy.. Chains are cheap so wear isn't really a problem is it?

On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 9:04:07 PM UTC+1, sms wrote:
> On 12/10/2023 9:17 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Many if not most riders choose 'nothing'. No time, attention, lubricant
> > or even a passing thought.
>
> I wouldn't say "most" but it's true that a lot of people never clean or
> oil their chain.
>
> I just hope that no one falls for the false narrative of waxing without
> understanding the reality of how things work in real life. I'm reminded
> of when there were people in some of the Usenet vehicle groups endlessly
> advocating for one brand of synthetic oil, which happened to destroy
> catalytic converters so it could not be approved by the API. There was
> no evidence that this oil was any better than any other synthetic oil
> but those trying to sell it were constantly posting stories about how
> the oil was tested outside of a vehicle and had the least friction based
> on some sort of meaningless test. Worse, they were advocating for
> abnormally long mileage between oil changes.
>
> --
> “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

Geezz, we have real life evidence of real users that put on a lot of miles…ehh km. I went back to the high praised Rohloff chain oil once. It lasted only one sandy ride. The sand clinged to the chain like … fill in the dots. Didn’t bother to clean the just replaced chain. Took it of and throw in the trash can. Rohloff chain oil is only suitable on a chain in a fully enclosed chain guard. Then it is excellent.
There are more important issues nowadays than chainlube.

Lou

On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 12:44:41 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 8:42:47?AM UTC-8, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 11:26:05 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On 12/10/2023 9:19 AM, sms wrote:
>> >> On 12/9/2023 5:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> >>
>> >> <snip>
>> >>
>> >>> In this, as everything else, people may agree on each of the relevant
>> >>> facts and yet weigh various degrees of import to each criterion. Which
>> >>> is fine.
>> >>
>> >> Exactly. What is sad is when someone picks out a single factor and then
>> >> proclaims that that factor is the most important to everyone.
>> >
>> >For those interested in actual data instead of vague hand waving or
>> >decades old opinions of "experts":
>> >
>> >Here's an article from a few years ago about the most thorough tests of
>> >chain efficiency up to that time:
>> >https://www.bikeradar.com/news/friction-facts-measuring-drivetrain-efficiency/
>> >
>> >Those tests showed paraffin based chain lubes had the lowest friction
>> >losses. That's why such lubes are now popular with many pro teams.
>> >
>> >The article has links one can follow for more information. (I haven't
>> >checked whether those links are still current.)
>> >
>> >The most recent edition of _Bicycling_ magazine has this article.
>> >https://www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear/a40627435/the-right-chain-lube/
>> >It's behind a paywall, for subscribers only. I bought the printed version.
>> >
>> >Instead of efficiency, these tests measured wear life, including with
>> >dirt, water, etc. added; but the author notes that longer wear life
>> >correlates with increased efficiency. And that paraffin based chain
>> >lubes produce the longest wear life.
>> >
>> >All that corroborates a 1977 article that I've posted here many times
>> >over the years. https://flic.kr/p/dkUGq6 and https://flic.kr/p/dkULS1
>> >That test was much more "home made," done by just riding countless miles
>> >and measuring wear with a micrometer. It's a "real world" test instead
>> >of a laboratory test. But it too found paraffin based chain lubes gave
>> >far longer wear life than any liquid lube the tester found.
>> >
>> >So: Am I picking out a "single factor"? I don't think so. These results
>> >indicate Factor #1 is Efficiency. Factor #2 is Chain Life, plus cassette
>> >or cog life, plus chainring life. Factor #3 is actually the reason I
>> >settled on paraffin wax based lubrication: The bike stays amazingly
>> >cleaner.
>> >
>> >Which, once again, does not mean anyone has to use this or any other
>> >chain lube. Do what you like! I don't follow the procedures described
>> >above. My method of wax application is probably not as good (although it
>> >is very clean), but my method is much less trouble.
>> >
>> >Again, do what you like! Some apparently really love dripping stuff on
>> >their chain, then later scraping its black version off their bike, plus
>> >solvent cleaning their chain in ultrasonic or other gizmos. Have fun!
>> >
>> >But if you (like Scharf) are going to claim your method is measurably
>> >"better," please bring data.
>> But why is this so important to you?
>
>Indeed, isn't really odd that Krygowski who has no experience in science is telling us that this is the ultimate in science?

I don't know about his experience in science, but his contention that
someone is not being truthful unless they agree with him is beyond
ridiculous.